Evaluating the evidence base for university counseling services and their effectiveness using CORE measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 4.9 2区医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Journal of affective disorders Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.022

Caitlin Collins, Emma Broglia, Michael Barkham

{"title":"Evaluating the evidence base for university counseling services and their effectiveness using CORE measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Caitlin Collins, Emma Broglia, Michael Barkham","doi":"10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is a pantheoretical measure of psychological functioning. Use of routine outcome measures (ROMs) assessing university counseling outcomes (i.e., clinical effectiveness) are essential to demonstrate evidence-based practice. But the evidence in higher education is limited as data usage and adoption of ROMs are not inherent within services, restricting knowledge of their effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis document the evidence-base for in-house university counseling services (UCSs) and use of ROMs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The review protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO doi:<span><span>tinyurl.com/2vw5464d</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> and reported following PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, PsycInfo, Opengrey, reference lists, and Sheffield Star Plus were searched March 22nd, 2021 and May 29th, 2024. Subgroup analyses explored the effectiveness of services using multiple therapies compared to a single therapy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>15 studies (<em>N</em> = 28,237) were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 studies (<em>N</em> = 14,795) included in a meta-analysis. CORE-OM data showed a large pre-post effect size (<em>g</em> = 1.19) demonstrating a reduction in students' psychological distress. The effect size for services using a range of therapies was significantly larger (<em>g</em> = 1.34) than those using a single therapy (<em>g</em> = 0.90).</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>The small number of papers demonstrates the limited body of evidence evaluating the effectiveness of UCSs. Lack of follow-up rates, likely due to limited ROM adoption, also hindered the evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Quality of studies was good and UCSs are more effective than comparative CORE-OM benchmark data of no treatment derived from a large dataset of psychological therapy services.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14963,"journal":{"name":"Journal of affective disorders","volume":"372 ","pages":"Pages 451-462"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of affective disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032724020032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is a pantheoretical measure of psychological functioning. Use of routine outcome measures (ROMs) assessing university counseling outcomes (i.e., clinical effectiveness) are essential to demonstrate evidence-based practice. But the evidence in higher education is limited as data usage and adoption of ROMs are not inherent within services, restricting knowledge of their effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis document the evidence-base for in-house university counseling services (UCSs) and use of ROMs.

Methods

The review protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO doi:tinyurl.com/2vw5464d and reported following PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, PsycInfo, Opengrey, reference lists, and Sheffield Star Plus were searched March 22nd, 2021 and May 29th, 2024. Subgroup analyses explored the effectiveness of services using multiple therapies compared to a single therapy.

Results

15 studies (N = 28,237) were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 studies (N = 14,795) included in a meta-analysis. CORE-OM data showed a large pre-post effect size (g = 1.19) demonstrating a reduction in students' psychological distress. The effect size for services using a range of therapies was significantly larger (g = 1.34) than those using a single therapy (g = 0.90).

Limitations

The small number of papers demonstrates the limited body of evidence evaluating the effectiveness of UCSs. Lack of follow-up rates, likely due to limited ROM adoption, also hindered the evaluation.

Conclusions

Quality of studies was good and UCSs are more effective than comparative CORE-OM benchmark data of no treatment derived from a large dataset of psychological therapy services.

查看原文本刊更多论文

利用核心指标评估大学心理咨询服务的证据基础及其有效性：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：临床结果在常规评估结果测量（CORE-OM）是一个泛理论的测量心理功能。使用常规结果测量（ROMs）评估大学咨询结果（即临床有效性）对于展示循证实践至关重要。但是，高等教育方面的证据有限，因为数据的使用和rom的采用不是服务固有的，限制了对其有效性的了解。本系统综述和荟萃分析记录了内部大学咨询服务（ucs）和rom使用的证据基础。方法：审查方案在PROSPERO上预注册doi:tinyurl.com/2vw5464d，并按照PRISMA指南进行报告。Scopus、PsycInfo、Opengrey、参考文献列表和Sheffield Star Plus分别于2021年3月22日和2024年5月29日进行了检索。亚组分析探讨了与单一疗法相比，使用多种疗法的服务的有效性。结果：15项研究（N = 28,237）被纳入叙事综合，13项研究（N = 14,795）被纳入meta分析。CORE-OM数据显示了很大的前后效应量（g = 1.19），表明学生心理困扰的减少。使用一系列疗法的服务的效应量（g = 1.34）明显大于使用单一疗法的服务（g = 0.90）。局限性：论文数量少，表明评价联合临床服务有效性的证据有限。可能由于ROM采用有限，缺乏后续率也阻碍了评价。结论：研究质量良好，ucs比来自大型心理治疗服务数据集的未治疗的CORE-OM基准数据更有效。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of affective disorders 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

10.90

自引率

6.10%

发文量

1319

审稿时长

9.3 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Affective Disorders publishes papers concerned with affective disorders in the widest sense: depression, mania, mood spectrum, emotions and personality, anxiety and stress. It is interdisciplinary and aims to bring together different approaches for a diverse readership. Top quality papers will be accepted dealing with any aspect of affective disorders, including neuroimaging, cognitive neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, experimental and clinical neurosciences, pharmacology, neuroimmunoendocrinology, intervention and treatment trials.