PSYCHLOPS (Psychological Outcome Profiles) is a recently developed, client‐generated, psychometric instrument that can be used as an outcome measure. Based on a similar instrument developed primarily for use in physical illnesses (MYMOP — ‘Measure Your Medical Outcome Profile’), it seeks the client's perspective on their psychological distress. It asks them to describe and then score the problem that troubles them the most at the start of counselling. We describe the development of PSYCHLOPS, including the involvement of the Plain English Campaign and two national mental health organisations: the mental health charity and support group, Depression Alliance (DA) and Primary Care Mental Health Education (PRIMHE). We review the literature and suggest that PSYCHLOPS, by focusing on the problems of greatest priority to the client, might prove a sensitive measure of improvement after counselling.

PSYCHLOPS ('Psychological Outcome Profiles') is a newly developed client-generated psychometric instrument which can be used as an outcome measure. Uniquely, it asks clients to state their own problems, in their own words. As part of its validation, we used it alongside an existing measure, CORE-OM ('Clinical Outcomes Routine Evaluation Á/ Outcome Measure'). Based on a qualitative methodology, we report here on the first-hand experiences of four therapists using both instruments.The key themes that emerged from therapists' responses were feasibility, validity and usefulness. Both questionnaires were perceived as complementing each other, the qualitative information from PSYCHLOPS balancing the quantitative information from CORE-OM and that both could contribute to the therapist-client interaction. The key features of PSYCHLOPS are likely to prove attractive to therapists and should increase acceptance and uptake of outcome measures.

No abstract

Study purpose: This descriptive study used a routine practice dataset to investigate whether demographic variables and intervention length were associated with outcome after brief psychological interventions in primary care. Brief description of the participants: The data are from 3687 adults with a wide range of presenting problems, from a culturally diverse inner London borough, referred to primary care psychologists and counsellors. Methodology: Demographic and service activity data were routinely collected using a local monitoring form and self-report outcome data using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM). The paradigm of reliable and clinically significant change was used to explore individual as well as group change. The relationship between demographic variables, intervention length and outcome was investigated. Results, conclusions and implications: Sixty-six per cent of the group with complete outcome data (n 0/458) showed reliable improvement and 45% also showed clinically significant improvement after the intervention. Ethnicity was not related to outcome, suggesting that the service was not culturally biased in this respect (although clients from ethnic minorities were significantly underrepresented in the sample of clients who attended). Women and employed clients were more likely to show improvement. Unemployed men had comparatively poor outcomes. There was a positive relationship between length of intervention and improvement. As is often the case, client and data attrition were high: the small sample for which complete outcome data were available reduced the representativeness and generalisability of the findings which must therefore be treated with caution. Issues of attrition must be addressed in future to ensure that data quality is sufficient to increase confidence in using it for service management, development and 'benchmarking'. However, the study adds to the growing body of 'practice-based evidence' supporting the provision of primary care psychology and counselling services. The findings suggest that the employment status and gender of clients may both need to be considered when 'benchmarking' outcomes.

No abstract