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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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
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