Outcomes measurement in psychiatry: a critical review of outcomes measurement in psychiatric research and practice

BACKGROUND Outcomes are measured to establish what works, in the context of evaluative research, and to improve the quality of care that is offered. Traditional outcomes focus upon biomedical endpoints, but there is an increased interest in patient based outcomes, which measure the impact of illness or healthcare interventions on the individual and how they live their day-today life. There are reasons to expect that the application of patient based outcomes would be especially relevant to the discipline of psychiatry. AIMS To explore the measurement of outcome in psychiatric research and practice, with particular reference to patient based outcomes. METHODS 1. A critical literature review of the outcomes movement in health care. 2. A survey and systematic review of the methods used to measure outcome in evaluative psychiatric research (randomised trials and outcomes research). 3. A survey of the use of outcomes measures by UK psychiatrists in their day-to-day practice. 4. A systematic review of the effectiveness of routine outcomes measurement in improving the quality of care for those with common psychiatric disorders. RESULTS An outcomes movement has emerged in healthcare, which can be understood in social, political and economic terms. Outcomes measurement in psychiatric research is dominated by the measurement of psychiatric symptoms, with little reference to patient based measures. Practising UK psychiatrists rarely measure outcomes. There are substantial practical and attitudinal barriers to the use of outcomes instruments in NHS mental health services. There is little evidence to support the potential for routine outcomes measures to improve the quality of mental healthcare. DISCUSSION Current mental health policy places great emphasis on the measurement of outcomes, and is likely to fail. The potential for patient based outcomes to be adopted in psychiatric research and practice has yet to be realised. The need for important research into the suitability and value of patient based outcomes measures in mental health research and practice is identified

Use of a multidimensional assessment tool in a psychiatric adolescent care unit.

AIMS: Adolescent mental health problems require treatment and care that are adapted to their needs. To evaluate this issue, it was decided to implement a multidimensional instrument focused on a global approach to adolescent social and behavioural functioning, combined with the ICD-10 classification. METHODS: The combination of an assessment interview and a classification tool enabled the method to integrate the measurement of several domains of patient-based outcome rather than focus on the measurement of symptoms. A group of 68 adolescents from an inpatient unit were compared with 67 adolescents from the general population. RESULTS: Results suggest that adolescents from the care unit adopt significantly riskier behaviour compared with adolescents from the control group. As expected, the main problems identified refer to the psychological and familial areas. A cluster analysis was performed and provided three different profiles: a group with externalizing disorders and two groups with internalizing disorders. On the basis of a structured interview it was possible to obtain information in a systematic way about the adolescents' trajectory (delinquency, physical and sexual abuse, psychoactive substance use). CONCLUSION: It was shown that treatment and care should not focus exclusively on mental health symptoms, but also upon physical, psychological and social aspects of the adolescent. A global approach helps in the consideration of the multitude of factors which must be taken into account when working with people with serious mental health problems and may help to turn the care unit's activity more specifically towards the needs of these adolescents

Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) vs. Health of Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) in clinical outcome measurement.

BACKGROUND: The Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) and Health of Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) are both measures of outcome for adolescent mental health services. AIMS: To compare the ADAD with HoNOSCA; to examine their clinical usefulness. METHODS: Comparison of the ADAD and HoNOSCA outcome measures of 20 adolescents attending a psychiatric day care unit. RESULTS: ADAD change was positively correlated with HoNOSCA change. HoNOSCA assesses the clinic's day-care programme more positively than the ADAD. The ADAD detects a group for which the mean score remains unchanged whereas HoNOSCA does not. CONCLUSIONS: A good convergent validity emerges between the two assessment tools. The ADAD allows an evidence-based assessment and generally enables a better subject discrimination than HoNOSCA. HoNOSCA gives a less refined evaluation but is more economic in time and possibly more sensitive to change. Both assessment tools give useful information and enabled the Day-care Unit for Adolescents to rethink the process of care and of outcome, which benefited both the institution and the patients

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses

Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics. © 202