Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine
Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A
Qualitative Meta-Analysis

Přehled o publikaci

J 2026

Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis

JONÁŠOVÁ, Klára; Michal ČEVELÍČEK; Petr DOLEŽAL; Benjamin AAS; Tomáš ŘIHÁČEK et al.

Basic information

Original name

Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis

Authors

JONÁŠOVÁ, Klára; Michal ČEVELÍČEK; Petr DOLEŽAL; Benjamin AAS and Tomáš ŘIHÁČEK

Edition

PSYCHOTHERAPY, American Psychological Association, 2026, 0033-3204

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Article in a journal

Country of publisher

United States of America

Confidentiality degree

is not subject to a state or trade secret

References:

URL, URL

Marked to be transferred to RIV

Organization

Fakulta sociálních studií – Repository – Repository

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000605

UT WoS

001635401100001

Keywords in English

routine outcome monitoring; qualitative meta-analysis; therapists’ experience; clinicians’ perspective; facilitators and barriers to implementation

Links

CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004583, interní kód Repo. EH22_008/0004583, research and development project.

Changed: 3/3/2026 00:51, RNDr. Daniel Jakubík

Abstract

In the original language

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has become an increasingly utilized tool in therapeutic practice that has the potential to improve therapy outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of existing qualitative studies investigating facilitators and barriers to clinicians’ implementation of ROM in their practice. A systematic search of qualitative studies on clinicians’ experience with the use of ROM in mental health services was conducted via APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative meta-analysis was used to synthesize the findings of the primary studies. Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in 22 metacategories organized into five clusters: (a) perceived clinical relevance, (b) institutional aspects, (c) practical aspects, (d) client variables, and (e) clinicians’ personal reactions. The meta-analysis revealed that the implementation of ROM into clinicians’ psychotherapy practice is influenced by many factors, including practical circumstances such as the work environment, the clientele, and the chosen ROM system. Clinicians’ attitude to ROM, its perceived usefulness, and their openness to receiving feedback on their work are also important variables.

Files attached

https://is.muni.cz/publication/2541457/supplementa_material_Jonasova_2025.docx

https://is.muni.cz/publication/2541457/Jonasova_etal_2025_Early_Access.pdf

Cite

JONÁŠOVÁ, Klára; Michal ČEVELÍČEK; Petr DOLEŽAL; Benjamin AAS and Tomáš ŘIHÁČEK. Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. PSYCHOTHERAPY. American Psychological Association, 2026, vol. 63, No 1, p. 33-47. ISSN 0033-3204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000605.

@article{102329,
   author = {Jonášová, Klára and Čevelíček, Michal and Doležal, Petr and Aas, Benjamin and Řiháček, Tomáš},
   article_number = {1},
   doi = {https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000605},
   keywords = {routine outcome monitoring; qualitative meta-analysis; therapists’ experience; clinicians’ perspective; facilitators and barriers to implementation},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {0033-3204},
   journal = {PSYCHOTHERAPY},
   title = {Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis},
   url = {https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2027-02483-001.html},
   volume = {63},
   year = {2026}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 102329
AU  - Jonášová, Klára - Čevelíček, Michal - Doležal, Petr - Aas, Benjamin - Řiháček, Tomáš
PY  - 2026
TI  - Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis
JF  - PSYCHOTHERAPY
VL  - 63
IS  - 1
SP  - 33-47
EP  - 33-47
PB  - American Psychological Association
SN  - 0033-3204
KW  - routine outcome monitoring
KW  - qualitative meta-analysis
KW  - therapists’ experience
KW  - clinicians’ perspective
KW  - facilitators and barriers to implementation
UR  - https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2027-02483-001.html
N2  - Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has become an increasingly utilized tool in therapeutic practice that has the potential to improve therapy outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of existing qualitative studies investigating facilitators and barriers to clinicians’ implementation of ROM in their practice. A systematic search of qualitative studies on clinicians’ experience with the use of ROM in mental health services was conducted via APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative meta-analysis was used to synthesize the findings of the primary studies. Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in 22 metacategories organized into five clusters: (a) perceived clinical relevance, (b) institutional aspects, (c) practical aspects, (d) client variables, and (e) clinicians’ personal reactions. The meta-analysis revealed that the implementation of ROM into clinicians’ psychotherapy practice is influenced by many factors, including practical circumstances such as the work environment, the clientele, and the chosen ROM system. Clinicians’ attitude to ROM, its perceived usefulness, and their openness to receiving feedback on their work are also important variables.
ER  -

JONÁŠOVÁ, Klára; Michal ČEVELÍČEK; Petr DOLEŽAL; Benjamin AAS and Tomáš ŘIHÁČEK. Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Routine Outcome Monitoring From the Clinicians’ Perspective : A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. \textit{PSYCHOTHERAPY}. American Psychological Association, 2026, vol.~63, No~1, p.~33-47. ISSN~0033-3204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000605.

Přehled o publikaci