This study investigates the implementation of digitally supported ROM in Italian psychotherapeutic practice using the Mindy platform. Building on existing international evidence regarding the benefits of ROM in enhancing therapeutic effectiveness, this research focuses on understanding how such a practice can be introduced, adopted, and sustained in a context characterized by a high degree of professional autonomy, heterogeneous clinical approaches, and limited institutional support. The study was designed as a mixed methods implementation study to capture the complexity of this process, addressing not only whether ROM can be used but also how it is actually integrated into psychotherapists’ clinical routines and what contextual factors facilitate or hinder this integration. A combined qualitative and quantitative approach was deemed necessary to generate both explanatory insight and empirical grounding for a robust analysis of implementation dynamics.

To guide the design and evaluation of this mixed methods implementation study, we adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [27,28], a widely recognized framework to support the systematic analysis of complex implementation processes. CFIR brings together constructs from multiple theoretical models and organizes them into 5 domains: the characteristics of the innovation, the outer setting, the inner setting, the individuals involved, and the implementation process. CFIR was selected not only for its comprehensiveness but because it is theoretically suited to examine implementation in professional domains characterized by high autonomy, weak formal hierarchy, and discretionary practice, such as psychotherapy. Unlike frameworks that focus primarily on organizational readiness or intervention fidelity, CFIR explicitly accommodates the interaction between individual professionals, loosely structured work settings, and evolving implementation processes. This is particularly relevant for psychotherapy, where adoption of structured practices such as ROM does not occur through formal mandates but through negotiated alignment with professional judgment, therapeutic orientations, and everyday clinical routines. CFIR therefore provides a theoretically appropriate lens to analyze implementation as a multilevel and processual phenomenon, in which professional agency, contextual constraints, and characteristics of the innovation jointly shape how digitally supported ROM is interpreted and integrated into practice.

In this study, CFIR was used from the outset to inform the development of the research design, the construction of qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments, and the approach for coding and interpretation of findings. The framework’s adaptability proved particularly valuable in structuring the analysis of an intervention (ROM) via a digital platform, introduced into a highly fragmented and heterogeneous psychotherapeutic system, such as the one operating in Italy. CFIR’s emphasis on capturing the perspectives of those directly involved in the implementation aligns with the study’s focus on psychotherapists as both subjects and agents of change.

The framework is not applied at a single point in time but is used to guide data collection and analysis throughout the full implementation trajectory [29]. This continuous engagement with CFIR supports the identification of context-specific dynamics as they evolve, allowing the study to capture temporal variation and the interaction between individual, organizational, and systemic factors. The structured yet flexible nature of CFIR enhances the study’s explanatory power and supports the development of insights that are both context-sensitive and transferable beyond the Italian setting.

The implementation study is part of the broader OutProFeed project, which aims primarily to assess the clinical effectiveness of digitally supported ROM in improving mental health outcomes. Alongside this central objective, the project also includes 2 complementary strands of investigation: one focusing on the usability of the digital platform and the other, addressed in this study, exploring the conditions under which ROM can be successfully adopted and sustained in everyday psychotherapeutic practice. The present work specifically examines the implementation process, taking into account contextual, organizational, and individual-level factors.

The unit of analysis is the individual psychotherapist. This choice reflects the structure of the Italian psychotherapeutic landscape, in which professionals often work autonomously and exercise substantial discretion in adopting new tools and practices [30,31]. By focusing on the psychotherapist as the key actor in the implementation process, the study aims to capture the variability in professional routines, digital readiness, and perceived value of ROM, all of which are expected to influence the integration of digitally supported ROM into routine psychotherapeutic practice.

The study is conducted within the Italian mental health system, where psychotherapy provision is largely fragmented across private practice and under-resourced public services [21,32]. As a result, service provision is predominantly private, with many psychotherapists operating independently and outside institutional structures. Even within the public system, psychotherapy is available only in a limited number of settings, such as family counseling centers and specialized mental health services, which often suffer from limited resources and organizational constraints. This context creates significant variation in how psychotherapy is delivered, regulated, and documented across the country [32,33].

Such heterogeneity offers a unique opportunity to examine implementation in a real-world setting characterized by institutional gaps, inconsistent digital infrastructure, and diverse professional orientations. The insights generated by this study are intended to inform not only national efforts to scale up ROM but also broader international discussions on the conditions needed to support the effective integration of digital tools in mental health care.

The study targets early-stage implementation at the level of professional practice. The primary implementation outcome is the integration of digitally supported ROM into psychotherapists’ everyday clinical work. Integration is understood as the extent to which ROM is practically taken up, interpreted, and incorporated into routine therapeutic activities over time, rather than as an indicator of clinical effectiveness or system-level diffusion. The study examines this outcome by exploring how psychotherapists engage with the platform, how ROM aligns with professional routines and norms, and how ROM-related activities are incorporated into ongoing clinical practice. This corresponds to early-stage outcomes such as acceptability, appropriateness, and perceived feasibility of digitally supported ROM at the level of professional practice, rather than to clinical effectiveness or system-level adoption. The CFIR framework is used to identify and interpret the individual, organizational, and contextual conditions that shape this implementation process.

In this study, successful implementation is operationalized in processual terms, rather than through predefined performance thresholds. Meaningful implementation is indicated by psychotherapists’ reported incorporation of ROM-related activities into routine clinical work, perceived alignment between ROM and therapeutic practice, and sustained engagement with the digital platform over time. Changes in Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale–36 (EBPAS-36) scores are interpreted as complementary indicators of evolving openness toward evidence-based and structured practices, while qualitative data provide the primary basis for assessing how such changes translate into everyday clinical routines. This approach is consistent with early-stage implementation research, where the aim is to understand how practices are integrated and adapted, rather than to quantify adoption or effectiveness.

Given the extensive range of constructs within the CFIR, a structured and transparent process was developed to identify the constructs most relevant to the implementation of digitally supported ROM in psychotherapy. The objective was to ensure a balance between theoretical completeness and practical applicability, adapting the framework to the specific characteristics of the intervention and its context.

The final set of selected constructs is reported in Table 1. The selection was guided by four exclusion criteria, applied in the following order:

The evaluation process involved 9 contributors, selected for their complementary expertise:

A two-step consensus process was then conducted:

Following consensus, each selected construct was associated with a specific interview item. These items were iteratively revised to ensure conceptual consistency with the framework, clarity of language, and clinical appropriateness. The resulting model supports a focused and theoretically grounded analysis of the implementation process, adapted to the structure of psychotherapy practice in Italy.

A pilot phase was conducted with 3 psychotherapists to assess the adequacy and feasibility of the data collection protocol and to support its refinement prior to the main study. This pilot phase was explicitly conceived as a feasibility and protocol-refinement step and not as a source of empirical findings or preliminary implementation results. It provided a pragmatic opportunity to test the interview guide developed around the selected CFIR constructs (Table 1) and to assess the clarity, flow, and acceptability of the interview structure and language.

The interview guide used during the pilot is available in Multimedia Appendix 2. An initial version had been prepared based on the selected constructs. Insights from the pilot led to minor procedural refinements, primarily concerning the sequencing and phrasing of questions to facilitate a more natural conversational flow consistent with clinical interaction. The substantive content of the questions was not altered, and all targeted constructs were retained.

Quantitative data were not collected at this stage. The EBPAS-36 questionnaire, which will be administered in the main phase of the study, is a validated instrument that requires a sufficiently large and diverse sample to yield meaningful results. Given the feasibility-oriented purpose of the pilot and the small number of participants involved, its administration at this stage was not considered appropriate.

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Committee for Integrity and Research Ethics of the University of Bergamo (2024_04_08) in compliance with national regulations and the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants are informed about the aims of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the possibility to withdraw at any time without consequences.

Before each interview, participants receive an information sheet and are asked to provide written informed consent, including permission to record the session. Consent forms are stored securely and separately from the collected data. Interviews are conducted in a confidential setting using secure online platforms. Audio recordings are transcribed verbatim and anonymized to ensure participant privacy.

All personal identifiers are removed or replaced with pseudonyms during transcription. Data are stored in encrypted, password-protected institutional folders accessible only to the research team. Files are regularly backed up and managed in accordance with institutional data protection policies and the European General Data Protection Regulation.

For psychotherapists operating in private practice and using the digital platform, the implementation study does not involve access to identifiable patient-level clinical data. The research team does not access or extract raw clinical content entered into the platform. Data collected for research purposes focus exclusively on psychotherapists’ experiences, attitudes, and implementation processes and are analytically and technically separated from any clinical documentation generated within routine practice.

Quantitative data collected through the EBPAS-36 questionnaire are similarly anonymized and securely stored. The integration of qualitative and quantitative data at the individual level is performed using anonymized study codes, ensuring that no identifying information is used in the analysis or dissemination of findings.

Dissemination of results will take place in aggregated form only, and no individual participant will be identifiable in publications or presentations. Participants are also informed that the results may contribute to academic and policy-oriented outputs aimed at improving clinical practice in the field of psychotherapy. No participant compensation is provided.

This implementation study is designed to generate practice-relevant insights into how digitally supported ROM is incorporated into routine psychotherapy work in a fragmented and professionally autonomous care system. Specifically, we expect to identify (1) the implementation mechanisms through which psychotherapists interpret, negotiate, and integrate ROM into existing clinical routines, (2) the contextual and organizational conditions that enable or constrain this integration, and (3) how these dynamics vary across therapeutic orientations and practice arrangements. These anticipated contributions are implementation-focused and do not concern clinical effectiveness, which is addressed within the broader OutProFeed trial.

ROM and feedback-informed approaches are supported by a robust body of evidence demonstrating their potential to improve clinical outcomes, patient engagement, and early detection of treatment deterioration [2,6,7]. Despite this evidence, the integration of ROM into routine psychotherapeutic practice remains uneven, particularly in settings where its use requires sustained changes to psychotherapists’ workflow, documentation practices, and interaction with patients [3,5,9]. Research on the digital transformation of mental health services further suggests that digital platforms can lower some practical barriers to ROM adoption but do not in themselves resolve deeper professional and organizational challenges related to implementation [10]. In this context, the present protocol explicitly focuses on implementation as a professional and organizational process, rather than on clinical effectiveness, which is addressed within the broader OutProFeed trial.

Despite the evidence base, ROM adoption in psychotherapy is often hindered by barriers that are well documented in implementation and measurement-based care research. These include psychotherapists’ concerns that structured monitoring may constrain clinical discretion or undermine therapeutic work, uncertainty about data ownership and potential “surveillance” uses of outcome data, and perceived workload associated with repeated administration and review of measures [3,5,6,9]. In digitally mediated models of care, technology can reduce friction in data capture and feedback, but it can also amplify sensitivities related to confidentiality, governance, and professional autonomy if the tool is perceived as externally imposed or poorly aligned with clinical routines [10]. These barriers are expected to be particularly salient in fragmented systems dominated by independent private practice, such as Italy, where formal organizational mandates and shared infrastructures are limited [18,21].

From an implementation science perspective, this study responds to recent calls to strengthen mental health implementation research by attending more closely to contextual variation, professional practices, and the dynamics of early-stage implementation [26]. The Italian psychotherapy ecosystem offers a particularly salient empirical setting for this purpose. Psychotherapy in Italy is characterized by high professional autonomy, strong theoretical pluralism, and limited institutional coordination, with service provision largely fragmented across private practice and under-resourced public services [18,21]. In such a context, the uptake of structured monitoring practices such as ROM is likely to depend less on formal mandates or technical availability and more on how these practices are perceived to fit with psychotherapists’ professional identities, therapeutic orientations, and everyday clinical routines.

Consistent with this view, the study conceptualizes implementation as an evolving process of professional integration rather than as a binary outcome of adoption versus nonadoption. Preliminary insights from the pilot phase suggest that variability across therapeutic orientations and practice arrangements is not incidental but central to understanding how ROM is interpreted and enacted in practice. This aligns with implementation research emphasizing nonlinear and processual models of change, in which innovations are adapted, negotiated, and selectively incorporated into routine work over time. The use of the CFIR provides a structured analytical lens to identify multilevel determinants of these processes while enabling comparison with prior implementation studies in digital mental health and psychotherapy [27,28].

Methodologically, the longitudinal mixed methods design is intended to capture temporal dynamics in psychotherapists’ engagement with ROM, addressing limitations of cross-sectional approaches that treat attitudes and practices as static predictors. Qualitative interviews serve as the primary source for reconstructing implementation trajectories, while repeated measurement of attitudes toward evidence-based practices using the EBPAS-36 offers complementary insight into how openness to evidence-based approaches may relate to evolving experiences of ROM integration. In line with the study’s implementation focus, these data are used for explanatory interpretation rather than for testing causal models or estimating effectiveness. Two limitations should be noted. First, the purposive sample and the focus on one national context support analytic transferability rather than statistical generalizability. Second, the reliance on self-reported accounts and repeated interviews may be subject to social desirability and attrition over time, which we will document and consider in interpretation.

Following completion of data collection, findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, and stakeholder-facing dissemination activities, contributing to ongoing debates on how data-informed practices can be embedded into routine psychotherapeutic care in contexts characterized by professional autonomy and organizational fragmentation [26].