Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users

Crawford, Mike; Robotham, Daniel; Thana, Lavanya; Patterson, Sue; Weaver, Tim; Wykes, Til; Rose, Diana

doi:10.3109/09638237.2011.577114

Cited by 156 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mental health service users have been shown to prefer this measurement scale to other commonly used approaches. 28 The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form 29 (BPI-SF) is an 11-item tool comprising a series of 0-10 numeric rating scales to assess the sensory intensity of pain and functional interference caused by pain. Four questions relate to pain severity with numeric rating scale (NRS) scores ranging from '0 = no pain' and '10 = pain as bad as you can imagine'.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A community pain service solution-focused pain management programme: delivery and preliminary outcome data

Simm

Iddon

Barker

2013

British Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary points:1. This article introduces a rationale for a solution-focused approach to a community-based pain management programme (PMP), describing delivery and preliminary outcome data. 2. It suggests PMPs can be feasibly run in the community without necessity for hospital care setting. 3. A community setting is also advantageous in that it allows maintenance of social networks and close third-sector links to support long-term, sustained mental well-being. 4. Solution-focused psychological approaches help the clinician tap into patient expertise and develop rich descriptions of the patient's preferred future, enhancing self-efficacy and empowerment. 5. Evaluation found significant statistical and clinical improvements in pre-post pain self-efficacy, mental well-being and function (but findings were limited by internal and external validity and no significant effect was found on pain levels). 6. Statistically significant change was maintained at 10 weeks for self-efficacy and function (and for the latter, clinically significant change was also maintained); improvements in mental well-being showed maintenance at all measured time points (up to 12 months) in terms of both statistical and clinical significant changes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A community pain service solution-focused pain management programme: delivery and preliminary outcome data

Simm

Iddon

Barker

2013

British Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, service users have concerns about some commonly-used outcome measures (Crawford et al 2011), and new measures are being developed which more fully incorporate service user perspectives (Evans et al 2012). In relation to support experienced for recovery from mental health services, a systematic review of measures that assess the recovery orientation of services found problems with all identified measures (Williams et al in press).…”

Section: Can Recovery Be Scientifically Investigated?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery grows up

Slade¹,

Williams²,

Bird³

et al. 2012

Journal of Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is perhaps unsurprising that adherence/engagement is a strong academic discourse as the audience, or readership, of these journals is likely to comprise many more clinicians than people accessing mental health services, and many academics are clinicians themselves. However, we know from previous research that people experiencing mental health challenges often place value on different outcomes than clinicians (Crawford et al, 2011;Kabir & Wykes, 2010), and that these are frequently neglected by researchers (Faulkner, 2015). The academic literature is a prominent and influential source of knowledge, and so if much of the discussion and research evidence around SDM is in relation to adherence, then there is a risk that this becomes a defining feature, or focus of SDM itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rationale for shared decision making in mental health care: a systematic review of academic discourse

James

Quirk

2017

Mental Health Review Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To identify and describe, in a systematic way, the various academic discourses on the rationale for SDM in mental health care, and so provide a comprehensive account of the ways in which this emerging field is being conceptualised in the research literature.Methodology: A systematic review of peer reviewed papers presenting a rationale for SDM in mental health. Relevant databases were searched from inception to July 2016. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis which aimed to identify and describe different discourses on the rationale for SDM in mental health care. Data were extracted into a standardised data extraction form which contained fields representing the developing thematic framework, study information and research methodology.Findings: Initial research returned 1616 papers, of which 175 were eligible for inclusion in this review. We developed ten distinct but interrelated themes which capture the various academic discourses on the rationale for SDM and represent some compelling arguments for SDM from a range of different perspectives including ethical, clinical, 'user' focussed, economic and political. Dominant narratives in the literature linked SDM to the recovery moment and person-centered care, and adherence and engagement with mental health services.Limitations: We are unable to make any conclusions about the strength of evidence for these rationales. Our review was restricted to peer reviewed publications, published in English.Implications: Our findings could be a useful framework to support the selection of outcome measures for SDM evaluations.Originality: There have been no systematic reviews published in this area previously.2

show abstract

Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users

Abstract: We consider it essential that service users' views are taken into account when selecting measures to evaluate treatment outcomes. Providing insight into views of users of mental health services, our findings serve as a starting point for discussion.

Cited by 156 publications

References 26 publications

A community pain service solution-focused pain management programme: delivery and preliminary outcome data

A community pain service solution-focused pain management programme: delivery and preliminary outcome data

Recovery grows up

The rationale for shared decision making in mental health care: a systematic review of academic discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About