Measuring goal progress using the goal-based outcome measure in Jigsaw - A primary care youth mental health service

Examining the psychometric properties of the headspace Youth (mental health) Service Satisfaction Scale in a mental health service in Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating service quality and satisfaction is central to the provision of accessible and developmentally appropriate youth mental health services. However, there are limited suitable measures and a lack of published evidence on the psychometric properties of measures to assess young people's satisfaction with youth mental health services. The headspace Youth (Mental Health) Service Satisfaction Scale (YSSS) was designed and implemented to assess young people's satisfaction with headspace mental health services in Australia. This study examined the reliability and factor structure of the YSSS in a youth mental health service in Ireland.

METHODS

The sample comprised 1449 young people (66.2% female) aged 12-25 years (M = 16.48, SD = 2.97). Participants completed the YSSS after their final brief intervention session through Jigsaw-The National Centre for Youth Mental Health. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on one- and four-factor models to test findings from previous studies. Reliability was also examined.

RESULTS

CFA supported a single-factor structure of the YSSS, and all items were suitable for inclusion. The internal consistency of the measure was deemed acceptable (α = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the YSSS is a reliable measure for monitoring satisfaction with youth mental health services in an Irish context. The measure demonstrated a unidimensional construct of satisfaction. These findings support the broader application of the YSSS and add to existing knowledge on measuring satisfaction within youth mental health services.

Evaluation of a community-based intervention for youth mental health in rural Ireland

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to provide information about pathways to care and clinical response to community-based brief interventions for improving youth mental health through evaluating the Mindspace Mayo service.

METHODS

Participants were 1,184 individuals aged 12-25 years (Mean = 17.92, SD = 2.66) who engaged with the Mindspace service. Demographic information included gender, age and living situation. The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation (CORE) was used to measure psychological distress before and after attending the Mindspace service between February 2015 and 2022.

RESULTS

On average, individuals received six sessions of therapeutic support. Analyses indicated that most referrals were made by either a parent (40%) or self-referral (38%). The most frequent reason for referral was mood and anxiety-related issues. Across the entire sample, reductions in CORE scores were both statistically and clinically significant. Neither the source of the referral nor living situation significantly predicted intervention response. Complexity of issues presented at referral significantly predicted a reduction in psychological distress post-intervention in young people aged over 17 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the value of primary care mental health services for young people aged 12-25 years, and underlined the importance of recording electronic data to track referral pathways, reasons for referral and the intervention outcomes over time.

Clinician perceptions of nomothetic and individualized patient-reported outcome measures in measurement-based care

Objective: Measurement-based care (MBC), which encompasses routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and measurement feedback systems (MFSs), is an evidence-based practice (EBP) supporting treatment personalization and clinical responsiveness. Despite MBC's effectiveness, clinicians report reservations regarding its utility, which may be a function of overreliance on nomothetic (i.e., standardized) measures. Although research suggests that individualized (i.e., idiographic) patient-reported outcome measures (I-PROMs) may have the potential to overcome these obstacles, little is known regarding clinicians' perceptions of different measurement approaches to MBC. Methods: This study examined clinicians' perceptions of the clinical utility, relevance to treatment planning, and practicality of nomothetic, individualized, and combined clinical feedback provided by a simulated MFS. Three hundred and twenty-nine clinicians were randomized to one of three conditions that presented a clinical vignette comprising: (a) nomothetic, (b) individualized, or (c) combined clinical feedback. Results: Participants' perceptions of the clinical feedback were not affected by the measurement approach. However, cognitive behavioral participants reported more positive perceptions of all aspects associated with the clinical feedback. Conclusion: These results were consistent with previous findings, suggesting that clinicians' theoretical orientation may have a significant impact on their perceptions of MBC, and should be considered when designing and implementing these systems.