Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care?
Abstract Background The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2018-07-01
|
Series: | BMC Psychiatry |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1798-4 |
id |
doaj-812cff05f4bb41dc80ab0a105871a370 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-812cff05f4bb41dc80ab0a105871a3702020-11-25T01:08:42ZengBMCBMC Psychiatry1471-244X2018-07-0118111010.1186/s12888-018-1798-4Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care?Edwin de Beurs0Matthijs Blankers1Philippe Delespaul2Erik van Duijn3Niels Mulder4Annet Nugter5Wilma Swildens6Bea G. Tiemens7Jan Theunissen8Arno F. A. van Voorst9Jaap van Weeghel10Stichting Benchmark GGZArkinMaastricht UniversityGGZ DelflandParnassia Bavo GGZ Zorgholding BVGGZ Noord-Holland NoordAltrecht Mental Health CarePro Persona Mental health Services ProCES, IndigoGGZ Ingeest, VU University Medical Center AmsterdamGGZ CentraalParnassia Bavo GGZ Zorgholding BVAbstract Background The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1798-4Clinical significanceHoNOSRoutine outcome monitoringSevere mental illnessTreatment outcome |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Edwin de Beurs Matthijs Blankers Philippe Delespaul Erik van Duijn Niels Mulder Annet Nugter Wilma Swildens Bea G. Tiemens Jan Theunissen Arno F. A. van Voorst Jaap van Weeghel |
spellingShingle |
Edwin de Beurs Matthijs Blankers Philippe Delespaul Erik van Duijn Niels Mulder Annet Nugter Wilma Swildens Bea G. Tiemens Jan Theunissen Arno F. A. van Voorst Jaap van Weeghel Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? BMC Psychiatry Clinical significance HoNOS Routine outcome monitoring Severe mental illness Treatment outcome |
author_facet |
Edwin de Beurs Matthijs Blankers Philippe Delespaul Erik van Duijn Niels Mulder Annet Nugter Wilma Swildens Bea G. Tiemens Jan Theunissen Arno F. A. van Voorst Jaap van Weeghel |
author_sort |
Edwin de Beurs |
title |
Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
title_short |
Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
title_full |
Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
title_fullStr |
Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
title_sort |
treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Psychiatry |
issn |
1471-244X |
publishDate |
2018-07-01 |
description |
Abstract Background The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients. |
topic |
Clinical significance HoNOS Routine outcome monitoring Severe mental illness Treatment outcome |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-018-1798-4 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT edwindebeurs treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT matthijsblankers treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT philippedelespaul treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT erikvanduijn treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT nielsmulder treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT annetnugter treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT wilmaswildens treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT beagtiemens treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT jantheunissen treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT arnofavanvoorst treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare AT jaapvanweeghel treatmentresultsforseverepsychiatricillnesswhichmethodisbestsuitedtodenotetheoutcomeofmentalhealthcare |
_version_ |
1725181917907648512 |