A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes

Purpose Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways – or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychology and psychotherapy 2018-06, Vol.91 (2), p.186-215
Hauptverfasser: Geach, Nicole, Moghaddam, Nima G., De Boos, Danielle
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 215
container_issue 2
container_start_page 186
container_title Psychology and psychotherapy
container_volume 91
creator Geach, Nicole
Moghaddam, Nima G.
De Boos, Danielle
description Purpose Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways – or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer‐reviewed literature. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. Results Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi‐structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well‐supported. Conclusions There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of ‘team formulation’ practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best‐practice implementations. Practitioner points Under the umbrella term of ‘team formulation’, three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/papt.12155
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1946426728</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1946426728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3655-1c595031cad42b508bd2b15d5ca525dee229eb6fa859e22109806b6ca07314f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EouWx4QOQlwiRYjt2Huyq8pQq0UVZR44zASM7TuOEKn9PSgpLZjMzmjNncRG6oGRGh7qtZd3OKKNCHKApI5wHScjpIZpSHkcBSUIxQSfefxJCeRrFx2jCkjRmMSFTtJlj3_sWrGy1wg18adhiV-IWpMWla2xnhoursK6wMrrSShpc-159OOPee1w3Ug2fcIfvoRzOO_YGa1sbsFC1ctxlVWDXtcpZ8GfoqJTGw_m-n6K3x4f14jlYvj69LObLQIWREAFVIhUkpEoWnOWCJHnBcioKoaRgogBgLIU8KmUi0mGmJE1IlEdKkjikvKThKboavXXjNh34NrPaKzBGVuA6n9GUR5xFMUsG9HpEVeO8b6DM6kZb2fQZJdku4mwXcfYT8QBf7r1dbqH4Q38zHQA6AlttoP9Hla3mq_Uo_QbdgYgs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1946426728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Geach, Nicole ; Moghaddam, Nima G. ; De Boos, Danielle</creator><creatorcontrib>Geach, Nicole ; Moghaddam, Nima G. ; De Boos, Danielle</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways – or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer‐reviewed literature. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. Results Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi‐structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well‐supported. Conclusions There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of ‘team formulation’ practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best‐practice implementations. Practitioner points Under the umbrella term of ‘team formulation’, three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1476-0835</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8341</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/papt.12155</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28972700</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>case conceptualisation ; clinical psychology ; psychological formulation ; systematic review ; team formulation</subject><ispartof>Psychology and psychotherapy, 2018-06, Vol.91 (2), p.186-215</ispartof><rights>2017 The British Psychological Society</rights><rights>2017 The British Psychological Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3655-1c595031cad42b508bd2b15d5ca525dee229eb6fa859e22109806b6ca07314f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3655-1c595031cad42b508bd2b15d5ca525dee229eb6fa859e22109806b6ca07314f13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8657-4341 ; 0000-0001-8412-3398</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fpapt.12155$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fpapt.12155$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28972700$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Geach, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moghaddam, Nima G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Boos, Danielle</creatorcontrib><title>A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes</title><title>Psychology and psychotherapy</title><addtitle>Psychol Psychother</addtitle><description>Purpose Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways – or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer‐reviewed literature. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. Results Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi‐structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well‐supported. Conclusions There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of ‘team formulation’ practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best‐practice implementations. Practitioner points Under the umbrella term of ‘team formulation’, three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.</description><subject>case conceptualisation</subject><subject>clinical psychology</subject><subject>psychological formulation</subject><subject>systematic review</subject><subject>team formulation</subject><issn>1476-0835</issn><issn>2044-8341</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EouWx4QOQlwiRYjt2Huyq8pQq0UVZR44zASM7TuOEKn9PSgpLZjMzmjNncRG6oGRGh7qtZd3OKKNCHKApI5wHScjpIZpSHkcBSUIxQSfefxJCeRrFx2jCkjRmMSFTtJlj3_sWrGy1wg18adhiV-IWpMWla2xnhoursK6wMrrSShpc-159OOPee1w3Ug2fcIfvoRzOO_YGa1sbsFC1ctxlVWDXtcpZ8GfoqJTGw_m-n6K3x4f14jlYvj69LObLQIWREAFVIhUkpEoWnOWCJHnBcioKoaRgogBgLIU8KmUi0mGmJE1IlEdKkjikvKThKboavXXjNh34NrPaKzBGVuA6n9GUR5xFMUsG9HpEVeO8b6DM6kZb2fQZJdku4mwXcfYT8QBf7r1dbqH4Q38zHQA6AlttoP9Hla3mq_Uo_QbdgYgs</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Geach, Nicole</creator><creator>Moghaddam, Nima G.</creator><creator>De Boos, Danielle</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8657-4341</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-3398</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes</title><author>Geach, Nicole ; Moghaddam, Nima G. ; De Boos, Danielle</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3655-1c595031cad42b508bd2b15d5ca525dee229eb6fa859e22109806b6ca07314f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>case conceptualisation</topic><topic>clinical psychology</topic><topic>psychological formulation</topic><topic>systematic review</topic><topic>team formulation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Geach, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moghaddam, Nima G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Boos, Danielle</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychology and psychotherapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Geach, Nicole</au><au>Moghaddam, Nima G.</au><au>De Boos, Danielle</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Psychology and psychotherapy</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Psychother</addtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>186</spage><epage>215</epage><pages>186-215</pages><issn>1476-0835</issn><eissn>2044-8341</eissn><abstract>Purpose Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways – or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer‐reviewed literature. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. Results Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi‐structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well‐supported. Conclusions There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of ‘team formulation’ practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best‐practice implementations. Practitioner points Under the umbrella term of ‘team formulation’, three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>28972700</pmid><doi>10.1111/papt.12155</doi><tpages>30</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8657-4341</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-3398</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1476-0835
ispartof Psychology and psychotherapy, 2018-06, Vol.91 (2), p.186-215
issn 1476-0835
2044-8341
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1946426728
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects case conceptualisation
clinical psychology
psychological formulation
systematic review
team formulation
title A systematic review of team formulation in clinical psychology practice: Definition, implementation, and outcomes
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T19%3A40%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20systematic%20review%20of%20team%20formulation%20in%20clinical%20psychology%20practice:%20Definition,%20implementation,%20and%20outcomes&rft.jtitle=Psychology%20and%20psychotherapy&rft.au=Geach,%20Nicole&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=186&rft.epage=215&rft.pages=186-215&rft.issn=1476-0835&rft.eissn=2044-8341&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/papt.12155&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1946426728%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1946426728&rft_id=info:pmid/28972700&rfr_iscdi=true