PURPOSE\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nTreatment outcome for common psychiatric disorders, such as mood and anxiety disorders, is usually assessed by self-report measures regarding psychopathology... Show morePURPOSE\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nTreatment outcome for common psychiatric disorders, such as mood and anxiety disorders, is usually assessed by self-report measures regarding psychopathology [e.g., via Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)]. However, health-related quality of life [as measured by the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)] may be a useful supplementary outcome domain for routine outcome monitoring (ROM). To date, the assessment of both outcomes has become fairly commonplace with severe mental illness, but this is not yet the case for common psychiatric disorders. The present study examined among outpatients with common psychiatric disorders whether aggregate assessments of change across treatment regarding psychopathology and health-related quality of life yield similar results and effect sizes.\nWe compared treatment outcome on the BSI and the SF-36 in a sample of 13,423 outpatients. The concordance of both instruments was assessed at various time points during treatment.\nScores on both instruments were associated, but not so strongly to suggest they measure the same underlying construct. The SF-36 scales presented a varied picture of treatment outcome: understandably, patients changed more on the mental component scales than on physical component scales. Outcome according to the BSI was quite similar to outcome according to scales of the SF-36 that showed the largest change.\nAlthough (mental health) scores on both instruments are associated, adding the SF-36 in addition to the BSI in treatment evaluation research produces valuable information as the SF-36 measures a broader concept and contains physical/functional component scales, resulting in a more complete clinical picture of individual patients. Show less
Purpose Treatment outcome for common psychiatric disorders, such as mood and anxiety disorders, is usually assessed by self-report measures regarding psychopathology [e.g., via Brief Symptom... Show morePurpose Treatment outcome for common psychiatric disorders, such as mood and anxiety disorders, is usually assessed by self-report measures regarding psychopathology [e.g., via Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)]. However, health-related quality of life [as measured by the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)] may be a useful supplementary outcome domain for routine outcome monitoring (ROM). To date, the assessment of both outcomes has become fairly commonplace with severe mental illness, but this is not yet the case for common psychiatric disorders. The present study examined among outpatients with common psychiatric disorders whether aggregate assessments of change across treatment regarding psychopathology and health-related quality of life yield similar results and effect sizes. Methods We compared treatment outcome on the BSI and the SF-36 in a sample of 13,423 outpatients. The concordance of both instruments was assessed at various time points during treatment. Results Scores on both instruments were associated, but not so strongly to suggest they measure the same underlying construct. The SF-36 scales presented a varied picture of treatment outcome: understandably, patients changed more on the mental component scales than on physical component scales. Outcome according to the BSI was quite similar to outcome according to scales of the SF-36 that showed the largest change. Conclusions Although (mental health) scores on both instruments are associated, adding the SF-36 in addition to the BSI in treatment evaluation research produces valuable information as the SF-36 measures a broader concept and contains physical/functional component scales, resulting in a more complete clinical picture of individual patients. Show less
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S.; Carlier, I.; Hemert, I. van; Hemert, A. van; Stiggelbout, A.; Zitman, F. 2019
Rationale, aims, and objectives People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems... Show moreRationale, aims, and objectives People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems evident, yet remains limited. Research on SDM in specialized mental health is scarce, concentrating on patients with depressive disorder or psychiatric disorders in general and less on patients with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Furthermore, recent research concentrates on the evaluation of interventions to promote and measure SDM rather than on the feasibility of SDM in routine practice. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' perspectives on SDM to treat depression, anxiety disorders, and OCD as to better understand SDM in specialized psychiatric care and its challenges in clinical practice. Methods Transcripts of eight focus groups with 17 outpatients and 33 clinicians were coded, and SDM-related codes were analysed using thematic analyses. Results Motivators, responsibilities, and preconditions regarding SDM were defined. Patients thought SDM should be common practice given the autonomy they have over their own bodies and felt responsible for their treatments. Clinicians value SDM for obtaining patients' consent, promoting treatment adherence, and establishing a good patient-clinician relationship. Patients and clinicians thought clinicians assumed the most responsibility regarding the initiation and achievement of SDM in clinical practice. According to clinicians, preconditions were often not met, were influenced by illness severity, and formed important barriers (eg, patient's decision-making capacity, treatment availability, and clinicians' preferences), leading to paternalistic decision-making. Patients recognized these difficulties, but felt none of these preclude the implementation of SDM. Personalized information and more consultation time could facilitate SDM. Conclusions Patients and clinicians in specialized psychiatric care value SDM, but adapting it to daily practice remains challenging. Clinicians are vital to the implementation of SDM and should become versed in how to involve patients in the decision-making process, even when this is difficult. Show less
Gaspersz, R.; Lamers, F.; Wittenberg, G.; Beekman, A.; Hemert, A. van; Schoevers, R.; Penninx, B. 2017
