Search

As the press for services at university counseling centers increases, so does the need to provide optimal therapeutic services. Ethnic glossing in previous research has combined rather disaggregated the mental health treatment experiences of American Latinx (AL) students and International Latinx (IL) students. The purpose of this paper was to examine potential differences in (1) the number of attended sessions, (2) symptom severity, and (3) treatment improvement rates. We used a nationwide dataset including 13,156 AL students and 911 IL students. Results indicated that (1) there was no significant difference in attendance rates, (2) AL students had significantly worse initial symptom severity (d = 0.24), and (3) there were no significant differences in improvement rates. We discuss the importance of understanding the different clinical presentations of AL and IL students, as well as the importance of addressing ethnic glossing in future research and clinical work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM), including the use of feedback, has become a much vaunted method in psychological therapies but is little used in university/college counselling and mental health services, perhaps because its adoption raises questions for many practitioners and service leaders. There is a need for both clinical‐ and research‐based statements to clarify the reasoning and rationale for ROM. This paper aims to present and respond to common challenges of and reservations about using ROM in student counselling and/or mental health services. Method: The article poses 15 questions and issues about the adoption of ROM drawn from the literature on this topic and further refined by practitioner‐ and researcher‐members of a consortium comprising service leads, practitioners, and researchers working in the field of student counselling in the UK. The questions address nine themes: (1) the purpose and yield of ROM; (2) the burden of measurement; (3) the impact on clients and process of therapy; (4) consistency with therapeutic theory; (5) client groups and settings; (6) concern from practitioners; (7) equality, diversity, and inclusion; (8) implementation; and (9) relationship with the paradigm of practice‐based evidence. Findings: Responses to each of the 15 questions are provided from a methodological, evidence‐based, and clinical perspective. Conclusions: The responses provide practitioners with the necessary information to enable them to make informed decisions as to the value, or otherwise, of adopting ROM, including feedback, in the delivery of counselling interventions, and generating evidence created from clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]