1
|
Harris MG, Tapp C, Arnautovska U, Coombs T, Dickson R, James M, Painter J, Smith M, Jury A, Lai J, Burgess PM. Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:9895. [PMID: 36011532 PMCID: PMC9408525 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/30/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) comprises 12 scales that cover the kinds of problems that may be experienced by working-age adults in contact with specialised mental health services. Drawing on 20 years' experience in clinical practice, a collaborative, international review of the HoNOS was undertaken and a revised measure (known as the HoNOS 2018) was published. In this study, 32 experts from Australia, England and New Zealand completed an anonymous web-based survey to assess the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility (aspects of content validity) of the HoNOS 2018. The experts rated 11 of the 12 HoNOS 2018 scales as 'important' or 'very important' for determining the overall clinical severity (item-level content validity index or I-CVI ≥ 0.75). Evaluations of the scales' ability to capture change, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were more variable, but generally positive. Experts' comments provided further insights into this variability; for example, they noted that some scales combine multiple phenomena, which can result in ambiguity in item wording and assessment challenges. Results from this study suggest that the revisions have not altered the importance of the scales. Given the measure's breadth of content, training remains important for ensuring rating fidelity. Inter-rater reliability and utility testing are indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meredith G. Harris
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Caley Tapp
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Urska Arnautovska
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Tim Coombs
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), c/- HETI, Locked Bag 2030, St Leonards, NSW 1590, Australia
| | - Rosemary Dickson
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), c/- HETI, Locked Bag 2030, St Leonards, NSW 1590, Australia
| | - Mick James
- Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London E1 8BB, UK
| | - Jon Painter
- Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK
| | - Mark Smith
- Te Pou, Kakariki House, Waikato Mail Centre, 293 Grey St, Hamilton East P.O. Box 307, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
| | - Angela Jury
- Te Pou, Millennium Centre, Phase II, Building B, Ground Floor, 600 Great South Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, New Zealand
| | - Jennifer Lai
- Te Pou, Millennium Centre, Phase II, Building B, Ground Floor, 600 Great South Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, New Zealand
| | - Philip M. Burgess
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
- Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gray RM, Kelly PJ, Beck AK, Baker AL, Deane FP, Neale J, Treloar C, Hides L, Manning V, Shakeshaft A, Kelly J, Argent A, McGlaughlin R. A qualitative exploration of SMART Recovery meetings in Australia and the role of a digital platform to support routine outcome monitoring. Addict Behav 2020; 101:106144. [PMID: 31648139 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2019] [Revised: 07/22/2019] [Accepted: 09/20/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Previous research has reported on the benefits of mutual support groups. However, such groups do not routinely collect data on participant outcomes. Moreover, the effect of collecting outcomes measures on these groups is unknown. The objective of this mixed methods study was to elicit participant views on using a novel, purpose built digital platform for routine outcome monitoring (ROM) as a standard component of a mutual support group. SMART Recovery, or the Self-Management and Recovery Training program, is group-based and uses professional clinicians to facilitate discussion and foster mutual support for a range of addictive behaviours, alongside Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Motivational Interviewing techniques. This paper reports on the qualitative component of this study and how participants perceive ROMs, and the potential shift to technological resources. Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with participants from SMART Recovery groups across New South Wales, Australia. Participants discussed their use of mutual support within group meetings to manage their recovery, including: naming their goals in front of peers; learning from clinicians and group discussion; and developing reciprocal and caring relationships. They also described any previous experience with routine outcomes measures and how digital technologies might enhance or hinder group function. Participants valued mutual support groups and reported that digital technologies could be complementary to physical, weekly group meetings. They were also concerned that the introduction of technological resources might pose a threat to physical meetings, thereby risking their access to mutual support. Findings have implications for the implementation of ROM when delivered via digital mechanisms, and indicate threats and opportunities that warrant consideration for future initiatives.
Collapse
|
3
|
Roe D, Mazor Y, Gelkopf M. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and provider assessment in mental health: a systematic review of the context of implementation. Int J Qual Health Care 2019; 34:ii28–ii39. [DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2019] [Revised: 07/25/2019] [Accepted: 08/02/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To review and integrate the vast amount of literature yielded by recent growing interest in patient-reported outcome measurement and routine outcome measures (PROMs/ROMs), in order to suggest options and improvements for implementation. PROMs are the systematic assessment of service users’ health using standardized self-report measures. Specifically, for ROMs, it includes routine provider or caretaker assessment measures. Both are administered to ascertain routinely, the impact of treatment in mental health settings and to improve care. A review is needed because of the large differences in setting, conceptualization, practice and implementation. Here, we examine the different major projects worldwide.
Data sources
Psych INFO and PubMed including Medline, Biomed Central, EMBASE Psychiatry and Elsevier Science’s Direct.
Study selection
We conducted a systematized review of the literature published from 2000 to 2018 on the implementation and sustainability of PROMs and ROMs in mental health services for adults.
Data extraction, synthesis and Results
We described and characterized the programs in different countries worldwide. We identified 103 articles that met the inclusion criteria, representing over 80 PROMs/ROMs initiatives in 15 countries. National policy and structure of mental health services were found to be major factors in implementation. We discuss the great variability in PROMs/ROMs models in different countries, making suggestions for their streamlining and improvement.
Conclusion
We extracted valuable information on the different characteristics of the numerous PROMs/ROMs initiatives worldwide. However, in the absence of a strong nationwide policy effort and support, implementation seems scattered and irregular. Thus, development of the implementation of PROMs/ROMs is left to groups of enthusiastic clinicians and researchers, making sustainability problematic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Roe
- Department of Community Mental Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838 Israe
- Center for Community Mental Health, Research, Practice and Policy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Psychiatry, Aalborg University, Denmark
| | - Yael Mazor
- Department of Community Mental Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838 Israe
- Center for Community Mental Health, Research, Practice and Policy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel
| | - Marc Gelkopf
- Department of Community Mental Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838 Israe
- Center for Community Mental Health, Research, Practice and Policy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
|
5
|
Harris MG, Sparti C, Scheurer R, Coombs T, Pirkis J, Ruud T, Kisely S, Hanssen-Bauer K, Siqveland J, Burgess PM. Measurement properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures: protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e021177. [PMID: 29678991 PMCID: PMC5914766 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2017] [Revised: 02/08/2018] [Accepted: 02/19/2018] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) for adults, and equivalent measures for children and adolescents and older people, are widely used in clinical practice and research contexts to measure mental health and functional outcomes. Additional HoNOS measures have been developed for special populations and applications. Stakeholders require synthesised information about the measurement properties of these measures to assess whether they are fit for use with intended service settings and populations and to establish performance benchmarks. This planned systematic review will critically appraise evidence on the measurement properties of the HoNOS family of measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Journal articles meeting inclusion criteria will be identified via a search of seven electronic databases: MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, PsycINFO via APA PsycNET, Embase via Elsevier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCOhost, Web of Science via Thomson Reuters, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Variants of 'Health of the Nation Outcome Scales' or 'HoNOS' will be searched as text words. No restrictions will be placed on setting or language of publication. Reference lists of relevant studies and reviews will be scanned for additional eligible studies. Appraisal of reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability will be guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Feasibility/utility will be appraised using definitions and criteria derived from previous reviews. For reliability studies, we will also apply the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies to assess quality of reporting. Results will be synthesised narratively, separately for each measure, and by subgroup (eg, treatment setting, rater profession/experience or training) where possible. Meta-analyses will be undertaken where data are adequate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Outcomes will be disseminated to stakeholders via reports, journal articles and presentations at meetings and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42017057871.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meredith G Harris
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Claudia Sparti
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Roman Scheurer
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Tim Coombs
- Illawarra Institute for Mental Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Jane Pirkis
- Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Torleif Ruud
- Division of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Steve Kisely
- School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
- Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Ketil Hanssen-Bauer
- Division of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Johan Siqveland
- Division of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Division for Health Services at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Philip M Burgess
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kaiser T, Schmutzhart L, Laireiter AR. Attitudes of Austrian Psychotherapists Towards Process and Outcome Monitoring. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 2018. [PMID: 29520535 PMCID: PMC6097747 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-018-0862-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
While monitoring systems in psychotherapy have become more common, little is known about the attitudes that mental health practitioners have towards these systems. In an online survey among 111 Austrian psychotherapists and trainees, attitudes towards therapy monitoring were measured. A well-validated questionnaire measuring attitudes towards outcome monitoring, the Outcome Measurement Questionnaire, was used. Clinicians' theoretical orientations as well as previous knowledge and experience with monitoring systems were associated with positive attitudes towards monitoring. Possible factors that may have led to these findings, like the views of different theoretical orientations or obstacles in Austrian public health care, are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tim Kaiser
- Department of Psychology, Psychotherapy Research Group, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
| | - Lisa Schmutzhart
- Department of Psychology, Psychotherapy Research Group, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Anton-Rupert Laireiter
- Department of Psychology, Psychotherapy Research Group, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ebert DD, Hopfinger L, Bockting CLH, Berking M. Emotion Regulation Protects Against Recurrence of Depressive Symptoms Following Inpatient Care for Major Depressive Disorder. Behav Ther 2017; 48:739-749. [PMID: 29029672 DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2017.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2015] [Revised: 02/25/2017] [Accepted: 03/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Relapse following response in psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major concern. Emotion regulation (ER) has been discussed as a putative emerging and maintaining factor for depression. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether ER protects against recurrence of depression over and above residual symptoms of depression following inpatient care for MDD. ER skills (ERSQ-ES) and depression (HEALTH-49) were assessed in 193 patients with MDD (age, M = 47.4, SD = 9.6, 75.1% female, 100% Caucasian) at treatment discontinuation, 3 and 12 months after treatment. Multiple hierarchical regressions were used to examine general and specific ER as predictors of depressive symptoms at follow-ups. Higher general ER predicted lower depression over and beyond residual symptoms of depression at 3-month follow-up among treatment responders but not among treatment nonresponders. With regard to specific ER skills, readiness to confront and acceptance of undesired emotions predicted lower depressive symptoms beyond residual symptoms of depression 12 months, respectively 3 and 12 months after treatment. Findings of the present study indicate that targeting general ER might be more important for remitted and less important for nonremitted patients. Enhancing ER should hence be realized in a sequential treatment design, in which a continuation phase treatment with a specific focus on ER directly follows, once patients sufficiently responded to treatment. Acceptance of undesired emotion and readiness to confront situations that cue these emotions appear to be particularly important for protecting against recurrence of depression. Future research should clarify whether findings can be generalized to outpatient care.
Collapse
|
8
|
|