Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome: a systematic review

Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient-doctor communication. However, their adoption is not without cost and the benefit of their use is unclear. Method. A systematic review was conducted. We sought experimental studies that examined the addition of routinely administered measures of HRQoL to care in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2000). Data were extracted independently and a narrative synthesis of results was presented. Results. Nine randomized and quasi-randomized studies conducted in non-psychiatric settings were found. All the instruments used included an assessment of mental well-being, with specific questions relating to depression and anxiety. The routine feedback of these instruments had little impact on the recognition of mental disorders or on longer term psychosocial functioning. While clinicians welcomed the information these instruments imparted, their results were rarely incorporated into routine clinical decision making. No studies were found that examined the value of routine assessment and feedback of HRQoL or patient needs in specialist psychiatric care settings. Conclusions. Routine HRQoL measurement is a costly exercise and there is no robust evidence to suggest that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of patients managed in non-psychiatric settings. Major policy initiatives to increase the routine collection and use of outcome measures in psychiatric settings are unevaluated

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety : systematic review

Objectives To examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings. Data sources Embase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,and hand searches of key journals. Methods A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies. Main outcome measures Recognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders and outcome of psychiatric disorders. Results Nine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scores increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome. Conclusions The routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings

General practitioners' opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders in primary health care. Interviews with one hundred Norwegian general practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Improvements in treatment of mental disorders are repeatedly called for. General practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the majority of treatment of mental disorders. Consequently, we interviewed GPs about their opinions on how treatment of mental disorders in primary health care contexts could be improved.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Among GPs affiliated within the Norwegian reimbursement system, we approached 353, and made contact with 246 GP's. One-hundred of these agreed to participate in our study, and 95 of them expressed opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders. The telephone interviews were based on open-ended questions, responses were transcribed continuously, and content analysis was applied. Results are presented both as frequency tables of common responses, and as qualitative descriptions and quotations of opinions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nearly all (95%) of the GPs had suggestions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders in primary health care. Increased capacity in secondary health care was suggested by 59% of GPs. Suggestions of improved collaboration with secondary health care were also common (57%), as were improvements of GPs' skills and knowledge relevant for diagnosing and treating mental disorders (40%) and more time for patients with mental disorders in GP contexts (40%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The GPs' suggestions are in line with international research and debate. It is thought-provoking that the majority of GPs call for increased capacity in secondary care, and also better collaboration with secondary care. Some GPs made comparisons to the health care system for physical disorders, which is described as better-functioning. Our study identified no simple short-term cost-effective interventions likely to improve treatment for mental disorders within primary health care. Under-treatment of mental disorders is, however, also associated with significant financial burdens.</p

Shared goals for mental health research: what, why and when for the 2020s

Mental health problems bring substantial individual, community and societal costs and the need for innovation to promote good mental health and to prevent and treat mental health problems has never been greater. However, we know that research findings can take up to 20 years to implement. One way to push the pace is to focus researchers and funders on shared, specific goals and targets. We describe a consultation process organised by the Department of Health and Social Care and convened by the Chief Medical Officer to consider high level goals for future research efforts and to begin to identify UK-specific targets to measure research impact. The process took account of new scientific methods and evidence, the UK context with a universal health care system (the NHS) and the embedded research support from the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, as well as the views of individual service users and service user organisations. The result of the consultation is a set of four overarching goals with the potential to be measured at intervals of three, five or ten years

Patient-reported outcome data generated in a clinical intervention in community mental health care - psychometric properties

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Models in the delivery of depression care: A systematic review of randomised and controlled intervention trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is still debate as to which features, types or components of primary care interventions are associated with improved depression outcomes. Previous reviews have focused on components of collaborative care models in general practice settings. This paper aims to determine the effective components of depression care in primary care through a systematic examination of both general practice and community based intervention trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty five randomised and controlled research trials which focused on adults and contained depression outcome measures were identified through PubMed, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Trials were classified according to the components involved in the delivery of treatment, the type of treatment, the primary focus or setting of the study, detailed features of delivery, and the discipline of the professional providing the treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement on the key depression measure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Components which were found to significantly predict improvement were the revision of professional roles, the provision of a case manager who provided direct feedback and delivered a psychological therapy, and an intervention that incorporated patient preferences into care. Nurse, psychologist and psychiatrist delivered care were effective, but pharmacist delivery was not. Training directed to general practitioners was significantly less successful than interventions that did not have training as the most important intervention. Community interventions were effective.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Case management is important in the provision of care in general practice. Certain community models of care (education programs) have potential while others are not successful in their current form (pharmacist monitoring).</p

Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods

Background The Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) and the Mental Health Component Summary score (MCS) derived from the Short Form 36 (SF-36) instrument are well validated and reliable scales. A drawback of their construction is that neither has a clinically validated cutpoint to define a case of common mental disorder (CMD). This paper aims to produce cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS by comparison with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Methods Data were analysed from wave 9 of the British Household Panel Survey (2000), providing a sample size of 14,669 individuals. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the scales and define cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS, using the following optimisation criteria: the Youden Index, the point closest to (0,1) on the ROC curve, minimising the misclassification rate, the minimax method, and prevalence matching. Results For the MHI-5, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods both gave a cutpoint of 76, minimising the misclassification rate gave a cutpoint of 60 and the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 68. For the MCS, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods gave cutpoints of 51.7 and 52.1 respectively, minimising the error rate gave a cutpoint of 44.8 and both the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 48.9. The correlation between the MHI-5 and the MCS was 0.88. Conclusion The Youden Index and (0,1) methods are most suitable for determining a cutpoint for the MHI-5, since they are least dependent on population prevalence. The choice of method is dependent on the intended application. The MHI-5 performs remarkably well against the longer MCS

Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR+) : study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe mental ill health, contributing to their poor physical health. Despite the 'culture' of smoking in mental health services, people with severe mental ill health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe mental ill health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe mental ill health. METHODS/DESIGN: SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care will be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant will be assigned a mental health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who will work with the participant and participant's GP or mental health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm will be usual care - following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe mental ill health. The primary outcome will be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months will be conducted in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe mental ill health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454 . Registered on 16 January 2015

“It’s hard to tell”. The challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of Neurorehabilitation

Background Interest is increasing in the application of standardised outcome measures in clinical practice. Measures designed for use in research may not be sufficiently precise to be used in monitoring individual patients. However, little is known about how clinicians and in particular, multidisciplinary teams, score patients using these measures. This paper explores the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in allocating scores on standardised outcome measures in clinical practice. Methods Qualitative case study of an inpatient neurorehabilitation team who routinely collected standardised outcome measures on their patients. Data were collected using non participant observation, fieldnotes and tape recordings of 16 multidisciplinary team meetings during which the measures were recited and scored. Eleven clinicians from a range of different professions were also interviewed. Data were analysed used grounded theory techniques. Results We identified a number of instances where scoring the patient was 'problematic'. In 'problematic' scoring, the scores were uncertain and subject to revision and adjustment. They sometimes required negotiation to agree on a shared understanding of concepts to be measured and the guidelines for scoring. Several factors gave rise to this problematic scoring. Team members' knowledge about patients' problems changed over time so that initial scores had to be revised or dismissed, creating an impression of deterioration when none had occurred. Patients had complex problems which could not easily be distinguished from each other and patients themselves varied in their ability to perform tasks over time and across different settings. Team members from different professions worked with patients in different ways and had different perspectives on patients' problems. This was particularly an issue in the scoring of concepts such as anxiety, depression, orientation, social integration and cognitive problems. Conclusion From a psychometric perspective these problems would raise questions about the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the scores. However, from a clinical perspective, such characteristics are an inherent part of clinical judgement and reasoning. It is important to highlight the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in scoring patients on standardised outcome measures but it would be unwarranted to conclude that such challenges imply that these measures should not be used in clinical practice for decision making about individual patients. However, our findings do raise some concerns about the use of such measures for performance management