A systematic review of mental health outcome measures for young people aged 12 to 25 years

Abstract

BackgroundMental health outcome measures are used to monitor the quality and effectiveness of mental health services. There is also a growing expectation for implementation of routine measurement and measures being used by clinicians as a feedback monitoring system to improve client outcomes. The recent focus in Australia and elsewhere targeting mental health services to young people aged 12–25 years has meant that outcome measures relevant to this age range are now needed. This is a shift from the traditional divide of child and adolescent services versus adult services with a transitioning age at 18 years. This systematic review is the first to examine mental health outcome measures that are appropriate for the 12 to 25 year age range.MethodsMEDLINE and PsychINFO databases were systematically searched to identify studies using mental health outcome measures with young people aged 12 to 25 years. The search strategy complied with the relevant sections of the PRISMA statement.ResultsA total of 184 published articles were identified, covering 29 different outcome measures. The measures were organised into domains that consisted of eight measures of cognition and emotion, nine functioning measures, six quality of life measures, and six multidimensional mental health measures. No measures were designed specifically for young people aged 12 to 25 years and only two had been used by clinicians as a feedback monitoring system. Five measures had been used across the whole 12 to 25 year age range, in a range of mental health settings and were deemed most appropriate for this age group.ConclusionsWith changes to mental health service systems that increasingly focus on early intervention in adolescence and young adulthood, there is a need for outcome measures designed specifically for those aged 12 to 25 years. In particular, multidimensional measures that are clinically meaningful need to be developed to ensure quality and effectiveness in youth mental health. Additionally, outcome measures can be clinically useful when designed to be used within routine feedback monitoring systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0664-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Therapeutic change in young people—A qualitative investigation of client and therapist perspectives

“…In this way, therapeutic work and outcomes may naturally facilitate and enhance the normal developmental processes and capacities within all young people. Considering the need to develop reliable and valid outcome measures for young people (Kwan & Rickwood, ), future research could explore developmentally sensitive markers of progress to track early intervention with adolescents and young adults.…”

No boundaries: a 2 year experience in a specialized youth mental health care program in the Netherlands

“…A follow up study measuring long‐term effects would be further enlightening. Furthermore, continuity would be necessary not only for treatment but also for diagnostic instruments and outcome measures to ensure quality and effectiveness in youth mental health (Kwan & Rickwood, ).…”

“…An explanation for the gender difference in clinical scores at the start might be that males, although suffering from possibly strong symptoms, are less likely to disclose mental health problems related to social stigma in line with their stereotypical roles. Females are more willing to disclose distressing information to others (Ward et al, 2007;World Health Organization, 2001) Furthermore, continuity would be necessary not only for treatment but also for diagnostic instruments and outcome measures to ensure quality and effectiveness in youth mental health (Kwan & Rickwood, 2015).…”

Implementing a salutogenic treatment model in a clinical setting of emergency child and adolescent psychiatry in Sweden

“…In addition to the self‐assessment, and to provide an objective clinical assessment of the patient’s development during the inpatient stay, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) were rated by the senior consultant together with interns, residents and staff at intake and discharge. The GAF scale range between 100 ( extremely high level of functioning ) and 1 ( severely impaired ) (American Psychiatric Association, ; Kwan & Rickwood, ).…”