Case-mix adjustment of adolescent mental health treatment outcomes

Predictors of child and adolescent mental health treatment outcome

BACKGROUND

To examine the predictors of treatment outcome or improvement in mental health difficulties for young people accessing child and adolescent mental health services.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of routinely collected data from services in England using the Mental Health Services Data Set. We conducted multilevel regressions on N = 5907 episodes from 14 services (M_age = 13.76 years, SD_age = 2.45, range = 8-25 years; 3540 or 59.93% female) with complete information on mental health difficulties at baseline. We conduct similar analyses on N = 1805 episodes from 10 services (M_age = 13.59 years, SD_age = 2.33, range = 8-24 years; 1120 or 62.05% female) also with complete information on mental health difficulties at follow up.

RESULTS

Girls had higher levels of mental health difficulties at baseline than boys (β = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.24-0.32). Young people with higher levels of mental health difficulties at baseline also had higher levels of deterioration in mental health difficulties at follow up (β = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.67-0.76), and girls had higher levels of deterioration in mental health difficulties at follow up than boys (β = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.03-0.16). Young people with social anxiety, panic disorder, low mood, or self-harm had higher levels of mental health difficulties at baseline and of deterioration in mental health difficulties at follow up compared to young people without these presenting problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Services seeing higher proportions of young people with higher levels of mental health difficulties at baseline, social anxiety, panic disorder, low mood, or self-harm may be expected to show lower levels of improvement in mental health difficulties at follow up.

Developing a case mix classification for child and adolescent mental health services: the influence of presenting problems, complexity factors and service providers on number of appointments

Background: Case-mix classification is a focus of international attention in considering how best to manage and fund services, by providing a basis for fairer comparison of resource utilization. Yet there is little evidence of the best ways to establish case mix for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).Aim: To develop a case mix classification for CAMHS that is clinically meaningful and predictive of number of appointments attended and to investigate the influence of presenting problems, context and complexity factors and provider variation.Method: We analysed 4573 completed episodes of outpatient care from 11 English CAMHS. Cluster analysis, regression trees and a conceptual classification based on clinical best practice guidelines were compared regarding their ability to predict number of appointments, using mixed effects negative binomial regression.Results: The conceptual classification is clinically meaningful and did as well as data-driven classifications in accounting for number of appointments. There was little evidence for effects of complexity or context factors, with the possible exception of school attendance problems. Substantial variation in resource provision between providers was not explained well by case mix.Conclusion: The conceptually-derived classification merits further testing and development in the context of collaborative decision making.

Service-level variation, patient-level factors, and treatment outcome in those seen by child mental health services

Service comparison is a policy priority but is not without controversy. This paper aims to investigate the amount of service-level variation in outcomes in child mental health, whether it differed when examining outcomes unadjusted vs. adjusted for expected change over time, and which patient-level characteristics were associated with the difference observed between services. Multilevel regressions were used on N = 3256 young people (53% male, mean age 11.33 years) from 13 child mental health services. Outcome was measured using the parent-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The results showed there was 4-5% service-level variation in outcomes. Findings were broadly consistent across unadjusted vs. adjusted outcomes. Young people with autism or infrequent case characteristics (e.g., substance misuse) had greater risk of poor outcomes. Comparison of services with high proportions of young people with autism or infrequent case characteristics requiring specialist input needs particular caution as these young people may be at greater risk of poor outcomes.

Extended Day Treatment: A Comprehensive Model of After School Behavioral Health Services for Youth

This paper describes Extended Day Treatment (EDT), an innovative intermediate-level service for children and adolescents with serious emotional and behavioral disorders, delivered in the after school hours. The current paper describes the core components of the EDT model of care within the context of statewide systems of care, including its theoretical foundations, core service components, relation to evidence-based practices, workforce composition and staff training, and data collection and reporting mechanisms. Recommendations are provided for statewide implementation, followed by discussion of model development as an approach to systems reform for the treatment of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders.

Models of case mix adjustment for Ohio Mental Health Consumer Outcomes among children and adolescents

Outcome data collection systems provide the opportunity for comparing agencies, programs, and therapists. However, the political stakes of comparisons raise important issues regarding their perceived validity. The goal of case-mix adjustment is to eliminate potential biasing factors that might render comparisons as inappropriate or irrelevant. In this paper, case-mix adjustment variables are identified using regression analysis followed by developing models of case mix adjustment using a sample of youth participants in the Ohio Mental Health Consumer Outcomes System. Results indicate that certain client level variables do predict outcomes. The total variance accounted for by variables other than baseline ratings of the outcome measure was small. When comparing agencies using adjusted and unadjusted models, some agencies did vary relative to other agencies. As with previous studies, however, the rank order of agencies was largely unchanged and the correlation between adjusted and unadjusted outcomes among agencies was significant.