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

Heterogeneity in patient-reported outcomes following low-intensity mental health interventions: a multilevel analysis.

BACKGROUND: Variability in patient-reported outcomes of psychological treatments has been partly attributed to therapists--a phenomenon commonly known as therapist effects. Meta-analytic reviews reveal wide variation in therapist-attributable variability in psychotherapy outcomes, with most studies reporting therapist effects in the region of 5% to 10% and some finding minimal to no therapist effects. However, all except one study to date have been conducted in high-intensity or mixed intervention groups; therefore, there is scarcity of evidence on therapist effects in brief low-intensity psychological interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine therapist effects in low-intensity interventions for depression and anxiety in a naturalistic setting. DATA AND ANALYSIS: Session-by-session data on patient-reported outcome measures were available for a cohort of 1,376 primary care psychotherapy patients treated by 38 therapists. Outcome measures included PHQ-9 (sensitive to depression) and GAD-7 (sensitive to general anxiety disorder) measures. Three-level hierarchical linear modelling was employed to estimate therapist-attributable proportion of variance in clinical outcomes. Therapist effects were evaluated using the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bayesian empirical predictions of therapist random effects. Three sensitivity analyses were conducted: 1) using both treatment completers and non-completers; 2) a sub-sample of cases with baseline scores above the conventional clinical thresholds for PHQ-9 and GAD-7; and 3) a two-level model (using patient-level pre- and post-treatment scores nested within therapists). RESULTS: The ICC estimates for all outcome measures were very small, ranging between 0% and 1.3%, although most were statistically significant. The Bayesian empirical predictions showed that therapist random effects were not statistically significantly different from each other. Between patient variability explained most of the variance in outcomes. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the only other study to date in low intensity interventions, evidence was found to suggest minimal to no therapist effects in patient-reported outcomes. This draws attention to the more prominent source of variability which is found at the between-patient level

Are there researcher allegiance effects in diagnostic validation studies of the PHQ-9? : A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether an authorship effect is found that leads to better performance in studies conducted by the original developers of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (allegiant studies). DESIGN: Systematic review with random effects bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. Search strategies included electronic databases, examination of reference lists and forward citation searches. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies provided sufficient data to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 against a gold standard diagnosis of major depression using the algorithm or the summed item scoring method at cut-off point 10. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information, methodological quality criteria and 2×2 contingency tables. RESULTS: Seven allegiant and 20 independent studies reported the diagnostic performance of the PHQ-9 using the algorithm scoring method. Pooled diagnostic OR (DOR) for the allegiant group was 64.40, and 15.05 for non-allegiant studies group. The allegiance status was a significant predictor of DOR variation (p<0.0001).Five allegiant studies and 26 non-allegiant studies reported the performance of the PHQ-9 at recommended cut-off point of 10. Pooled DOR for the allegiant group was 49.31, and 24.96 for the non-allegiant studies. The allegiance status was a significant predictor of DOR variation (p=0.015).Some potential alternative explanations for the observed authorship effect including differences in study characteristics and quality were found, although it is not clear how some of them account for the observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Allegiant studies reported better performance of the PHQ-9. Allegiance status was predictive of variation in the DOR. Based on the observed differences between independent and non-independent studies, we were unable to conclude or exclude that allegiance effects are present in studies examining the diagnostic performance of the PHQ-9. This study highlights the need for future meta-analyses of diagnostic validation studies of psychological measures to evaluate the impact of researcher allegiance in the primary studies

The health of mothers of children with a life-limiting condition; a comparative cohort study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to quantify the incidence rates of common mental and physical health conditions in mothers of children with a life-limiting condition.MethodsComparative national longitudinal cohort study using linked primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Maternal-child dyads were identified in these data. Maternal physical and mental health outcomes were identified in the primary and secondary care datasets using previously developed diagnostic coding frameworks. Incidence rates of the outcomes were modelled using Poisson regression adjusting for deprivation, ethnicity and age and accounting for time at risk.ResultsA total of 35,683 mothers, 8,950 had a child with a life-limiting condition, 8,868 had a child with a chronic condition and 17,865 had a child with no long-term condition.The adjusted incidence rates of all of the physical and mental health conditionswere significantly higher in the mothers of children with a life-limiting condition when compared to those mothers with a child with no long-term condition. (e.g. depression IRR 1.21 (95%CI 1.13 to 1.30) cardiovascular disease IRR 1.73 (95%CI 1.27 to 2.36), death in mothers IRR 1.59 (95%CI 1.16 to 2.18).ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrates the higher incidence rates of common and serious physical and mental health problems and death in mothers of children with a life limiting condition. Further research is required to understand how best to support these mothers, but healthcare providers should consider how they can target this population to provide preventative and treatment services

Disentangling psychopathology, substance use and dependence: A factor analysis

BackgroundThe notion that substance use can induce symptoms of depression and anxiety is influential in clinical practice, however questions remain about the empirical support for this hypothesis.MethodsWe analysed mental health and substance dependence screening records for 280 outpatients in addictions treatment. Item-level data for depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), severity of dependence (SDS) and self-reported weekly substance use were studied using factor analysis and correlations. Symptom-level associations between substance use and psychological distress symptoms were examined after controlling for underlying levels of psychopathology.ResultsWe obtained a two-factor solution accounting for approximately 48 % of total variance. Depression and anxiety symptoms loaded onto a single psychopathology factor. Severity of dependence (SDS) and substance use measures loaded onto a distinct but correlated factor. After controlling for latent levels of psychopathology, the only remaining symptom-level associations were impaired concentration linked to cannabis use and irritability linked to alcohol use. Dependence (SDS) was prominently associated with depressive rumination, and negatively correlated with residual anxiety symptoms related to substance use (e.g., craving).ConclusionsOverall, this analysis supports a psychological understanding of comorbidity; with dependence, craving, negative reinforcement and rumination as key variables

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

Short text messages to encourage adherence to medication and follow-up for people with psychosis (Mobile.Net): randomized controlled trial in Finland

Background: A text messaging service (short message service [SMS]) has the potential to target large groups of people with long-term illnesses such as serious mental disorders, who may have difficulty with treatment adherence. Robust research on the impact of mobile technology interventions for these patients remains scarce. Objective: The main objective of our study was to investigate the impact of individually tailored short text messages on the rate of psychiatric hospital readmissions, health care service use, and clinical outcomes. In addition, we analyzed treatment costs. Methods: Between September 2011 and November 2012, we randomly assigned 1139 people to a tailored text message intervention (n=569) or usual care (n=570). Participants received semiautomated text messages for up to 12 months or usual care. The primary outcome, based on routinely collected health register data, was patient readmission into a psychiatric hospital during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were related to other service use, coercion, medication, adverse events, satisfaction, social functioning, quality of life, and economic factors (cost analysis). Results: There was 98.24% (1119/1139) follow-up at 12 months. Tailored mobile telephone text messages did not reduce the rate of hospital admissions (242/563, 43.0% of the SMS group vs 216/556, 38.8% of the control group; relative risk 1.11; 95% CI 0.92-1.33; P=.28), time between hospitalizations (mean difference 7.0 days 95% CI –8.0 to 24.0; P=.37), time spent in a psychiatric hospital during the year (mean difference 2.0 days 95% CI –2.0 to 7.0; P=.35), or other service outcomes. People who received text messages were less disabled, based on Global Assessment Scale scores at the time of their readmission, than those who did not receive text messages (odds ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.97; P=.04). The costs of treatment were higher for people in the SMS group than in the control group (mean €10,103 vs €9210, respectively, P<.001). Conclusions: High-grade routinely collected data can provide clear outcomes for pragmatic randomized trials. SMS messaging tailored with the input of each individual patient did not decrease the rate of psychiatric hospital visits after the 12 months of follow-up. Although there may have been other, more subtle effects, the results of these were not evident in outcomes of agreed importance to clinicians, policymakers, and patients and their families