Background: The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods: Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results: Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions: For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.
Background: The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods: Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results: Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions: For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.
Abstract: Objective: The aim of this pilot implementation study was to explore the initial experiences with andimpact of Parenting with Success and Satisfaction (PARSS), a psychiatric rehabilitation and recoverybased,guided self-help intervention, for parents with severe mental illnesses. Methods: Changes in the PARSS intervention group were compared with changes in a control group in a nonequivalent controlgroup design. Outcome measures included: parenting satisfaction reported by parents; parenting success reported by mental health practitioners and family members; empowerment as reported by parents, practitioners and family members; and parents’ reported quality of life. Additional process data were obtained on relationship with practitioner, quality of contact, satisfaction with the intervention and fidelity. Results: Parenting satisfaction increased after 1 year for the PARSS group, but not for the control group. Parents’ reports of empowerment did not change for either group. The scores of parents’ empowerment reported by practitioners and family members increased in the control group, with no such change in the PARSS group. Quality of life improved significantly for the intervention group. Process measures showed that, although PARSS was not always implemented as intended, both parents and practitioners expressed satisfaction with the intervention. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: The first experiences with PARSS were mixed. This intervention, implemented by mental health practitioners, has the potential to function as a useful tool for supporting parents. Attention must be paid to enhancing intervention implementation and fidelity.doi: 10.1037/prj0000067PMID: 24866839
MULTIFILE
