Early Evidence, Real Momentum: What Our First SessionGlance Pilot Tells Us

SessionGlance was created to solve a very human problem in psychotherapy: clinicians and clients are working hard, but the data about that work is often underused, invisible, or hard to translate into meaningful feedback and documentation.

Traditional feedback and outcome systems tend to be therapist-centered. Clients fill out measures, but rarely see their own progress in a way that feels usable or motivating. SessionGlance was designed precisely to address that gap: a dual-report feedback platform that sends a therapist-edited, client-facing report after each session, plus a therapist-facing psychological assessment report that supports documentation, care coordination, and payer communication.

Our initial pilot study asked a simple question: If we put this system into a real outpatient clinic, will it actually help?

The answer from this early data is: a clear yes, in important ways—and it gives us a strong foundation for the larger, more rigorous research that is already underway.

The Pilot: Two Linked Studies in Real-World Practice

The pilot included two related studies conducted at a private outpatient clinic in the Midwestern United States:

• Study 1: Focused on treatment engagement – specifically, the proportion of scheduled sessions that clients actually attended.
• Study 2: Examined treatment outcomes over time – depression, anxiety, loneliness, resilience, and therapist-rated psychosocial functioning (GAF).

In both studies, clients who received SessionGlance reports after each session were compared to clients who received standard care without reports (a waitlist control).

Study 1: Does SessionGlance Improve Treatment Engagement?

Study 1 examined whether SessionGlance supports stronger follow-through and fewer missed sessions.

• Sample: 49 adult clients in weekly outpatient psychotherapy.
• Groups:
  • 20 clients received SessionGlance (SG) reports after each session.
  • 29 clients were in a waitlist control group and received treatment as usual.
• Outcome: Engagement was defined as the proportion of scheduled sessions attended (sessions attended ÷ sessions scheduled).

Preliminary checks indicated that engagement did not systematically differ by therapist, gender, or age, so these variables were not included as covariates in the main analysis.

Key Finding: Higher Engagement with SessionGlance

Clients who received SessionGlance reports attended a much higher percentage of their scheduled sessions compared to those receiving standard care:

• SessionGlance group: Mean engagement = 0.93 (SD = 0.09) → about 93% of sessions attended
• Control group: Mean engagement = 0.75 (SD = 0.17) → about 75% of sessions attended

Visual Summary of Study 1 Engagement

The table below summarizes the engagement difference between groups. You can use it as an in-line “chart” in your blog post.

Study 2: Does SessionGlance Support Better Clinical Outcomes?

Study 2 shifted the focus from engagement to symptom and functioning outcomes over time.

• Sample: 36 adult clients in individual outpatient psychotherapy, treated by three licensed psychotherapists.
• Average treatment length: about 15.7 sessions (range: 5–33).
• Outcome domains:
  • Depressive symptoms (brief PHQ-style measure)
  • Anxiety symptoms (brief GAD-style measure)
  • Loneliness
  • Psychological resilience (AAQ)
  • Therapist-rated global psychosocial functioning (GAF)

Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine how these outcomes changed over the course of treatment and whether those trajectories differed between the SessionGlance and control groups.

Key Outcome Findings

• Loneliness: Clients in the SessionGlance group showed significantly greater reductions in loneliness over time than those in the control group.
• Global Functioning (GAF): SessionGlance was also associated with significantly greater improvements in overall psychosocial functioning, meaning therapists rated SG clients as improving more in day-to-day functioning and overall adjustment.
• Depression & Anxiety: For depressive and anxiety symptoms, effects trended in the expected direction, suggesting faster symptom reduction for SG users, but did not consistently reach traditional significance thresholds in this initial sample.
• Resilience (AAQ): No significant differences were observed for psychological resilience, which may change more slowly or require additional targeted interventions.

Study 2 Outcome Summary

How This Fits into the Bigger Picture

Taken together, the two studies suggest that SessionGlance:

• Improves engagement – clients attend a higher proportion of scheduled sessions when they receive personalized, therapist-edited feedback reports.
• Supports meaningful aspects of clinical change – especially in loneliness and overall functioning, which are crucial for quality of life and long-term recovery.
• Extends feedback-informed treatment – by providing clients not just with scores, but with visual, narrative, and reflective feedback they can actually use.

SessionGlance is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reduce therapist burden, restore the client’s role as an active recipient of feedback, and embed outcome monitoring in a way that feels clinically natural rather than bureaucratic.

Limitations: Why We’re Calling This a Starting Point

The pilot is also clear about its limitations, which are important to acknowledge:

• Non-random assignment: Clients were assigned to SessionGlance vs control based on rollout timing, not randomization, so unmeasured differences between groups are possible.
• Single clinical setting & small therapist pool: Data come from one outpatient clinic and a small number of therapists, which limits generalizability.
• Modest sample sizes: Especially for Study 2, where detecting more subtle effects (e.g., resilience) may require larger samples.
• Narrow engagement metric: Engagement was defined as proportion of sessions attended; it does not capture in-session participation or emotional engagement.

These are exactly the kinds of limitations you would expect in a first, real-world pilot. They don’t negate the findings—instead, they highlight the need for ongoing, scaled-up research.

Where We’re Going Next

This initial pilot gives us a strong, data-driven reason to keep going:

• We’ve seen that SessionGlance can be integrated into real-world practice.
• We’ve seen signals of impact on both engagement and key clinical outcomes.
• We’ve clarified where we need larger, more rigorous studies (randomized designs, multi-site data, broader outcome metrics).

Future work is already in motion, focusing on:

• Randomized and multi-site trials to strengthen causal inferences.
• Mechanisms of change, including how clients interact with their reports, how therapists use the feedback, and how the system shapes the therapeutic process.
• Implementation questions – what supports clinics need to adopt SessionGlance at scale.