1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1996.tb00061.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mental health services outcome evaluation.

Abstract: There is an urgent need for pertinent outcome information. Relevance for decision maker5 must take priority over scientific rigor. However, a review of computeridentifled outcome evaluation reports from community service settings, during the past 5 years, suggests that much more has been said than has been done. Although relatively heterogeneous in scope, these studies focused on the effects of community support sewices for adulb with persistent and severe mental illness; traditional outpatient sewices have be… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
0
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The aim is to conduct mental health services research along the lines described by Speer and Newman. 19 The process by which this collaboration unfolded will be described briefly, followed by a discussion of specific suggestions regarding the use of the CAFAS as an outcome indicator.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim is to conduct mental health services research along the lines described by Speer and Newman. 19 The process by which this collaboration unfolded will be described briefly, followed by a discussion of specific suggestions regarding the use of the CAFAS as an outcome indicator.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This evaluation will of necessity be a study of client change while receiving treatment since the women's treatment needs, while ameliorated, are likely to endure beyond their discharge from a medium-secure environment. Appropriate comparisons can be made using repeated measures, however, between patients who have been in the treatment setting for 1 year and those who have been treated for less than this time (Speer, 1988). Additional comparisons may be made between patients who have an additional diagnosis of PD with those that do not, and also between patients referred but not admitted and patients admitted.…”
Section: Treatment Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The current sample represented a typical presenting population for CBT in outpatient mental health clinics (i.e., people with varying diagnoses, a range of presenting symptoms, and unique concurrent and previous treatment histories). As such, the present study has good external validity, as each of these factors is common in many treatment settings (Speer & Newman, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%