↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring Treatment Progress and Providing Feedback is Viewed Favorably but Rarely Used in Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 897)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
47 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Monitoring Treatment Progress and Providing Feedback is Viewed Favorably but Rarely Used in Practice
Published in
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10488-016-0763-0
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Numerous trials demonstrate that monitoring client progress and using feedback for clinical decision-making enhances treatment outcomes, but available data suggest these practices are rare in clinical settings and no psychometrically validated measures exist for assessing attitudinal barriers to these practices. This national survey of 504 clinicians collected data on attitudes toward and use of monitoring and feedback. Two new measures were developed and subjected to factor analysis: The monitoring and feedback attitudes scale (MFA), measuring general attitudes toward monitoring and feedback, and the attitudes toward standardized assessment scales-monitoring and feedback (ASA-MF), measuring attitudes toward standardized progress tools. Both measures showed good fit to their final factor solutions, with excellent internal consistency for all subscales. Scores on the MFA subscales (Benefit, Harm) indicated that clinicians hold generally positive attitudes toward monitoring and feedback, but scores on the ASA-MF subscales (Clinical Utility, Treatment Planning, Practicality) were relatively neutral. Providers with cognitive-behavioral theoretical orientations held more positive attitudes. Only 13.9 % of clinicians reported using standardized progress measures at least monthly and 61.5 % never used them. Providers with more positive attitudes reported higher use, providing initial support for the predictive validity of the ASA-MF and MFA. Thus, while clinicians report generally positive attitudes toward monitoring and feedback, routine collection of standardized progress measures remains uncommon. Implications for the dissemination and implementation of monitoring and feedback systems are discussed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 204 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 10%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 86 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 74 36%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 <1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 98 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 363. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2026.
All research outputs
#110,768
of 34,307,719 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#3
of 897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,936
of 337,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,307,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.