Enhancing the patient involvement in outcomes: a study protocol of personalised outcome measurement in the treatment of substance misuse

BMC Psychiatry

Mark Ashworth¹  Célia MD Sales²  Paula CG Alves¹ 

[1] Division of Health and Social Care Research, School of Medicine, King’s College London, 7th Floor Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK;Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de Evora (CIEP-UE), Colégio Pedro da Fonseca, R. Barba Rala, 1, PITE, Évora 7005-345, Portugal

关键词: Substance misuse treatment;    Individualized outcome measures;    Patient-generated outcome measures;    Patient perspective;    Personalised outcome measurement;    Patient involvement;   

Others  :  1123859
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-13-337

 received in 2013-11-29, accepted in 2013-12-05,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Involving patients in treatment is becoming increasingly popular in mental health [Sales & Alves: Personalized evaluation of psychological treatments: A review of tools and research designs, submitted]. However, in substance misuse treatment settings, the patient perspective about treatment tends to be overlooked. This has been cited as a key priority by Orford et al. [Addiction, 103: 875-885, 2008] who included patient feedback about treatment as one of ten areas requiring an urgent paradigm shift in addiction research and practice.

This project will apply an innovative method to involve substance misuse patients in psychological therapies, by asking them to suggest topics to evaluate their treatment. These topics suggested by patients can be written as a list of personalised items, so-called as patient-generated outcome measures (PGOM). Despite its patient-friendly features, PGOM’s have never been used in this population, which is what this project aims to overcome.

Methods/design

This project is part of an International Exchange Platform on Personalising Addiction Treatment. Data will be collected in two phases (pre-post study and focus groups with patients) to explore the following:

1). How reliable and sensitive to change are PGOM’s and standardised measures in substance misuse treatment?

2). Do PGOM’s add relevant information to standardised measures?

3). What are the views of substance misuse patients about personalised outcome assessment?

4). Development of guidelines on using PGOM’s in this population

Discussion

This research will potentially demonstrate the diversity of personal problems among patients seeking substance misuse treatment, suggesting the relevance of PGOM as a method to personalise outcome measurement and, ultimately, guiding treatment provision. It is expected that, as in previous studies, PGOM’s will be perceived as helpful and patient-friendly tools, where patients may express their own concerns in a semi-structured setting. Similarly to other populations, we also expect PGOM’s to be reliable, valid and sensitive to clinical changes in substance misuse treatment, as well as more content informative than their standardised counterparts. If these results are achieved, we might hypothesize that PGOM’s are a potentially valid supplement to traditional standardised scales, by providing a closer insight to what motivates patients to participate in substance misuse treatment programmes.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Alves et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pain CM, Chadwick P, Abba N: Clients’ experience of case formulation in cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis. Brit J Clin Psychol 2008, 47:127-138.
• [2]Sales CMD, Alves PCG: Individualized patient-progress systems: why we need to move towards a personalized evaluation of psychological treatments. Can Psychol 2012, 53:115-121.
• [3]Sales CMD, Alves PCG, Evans C, Elliott R, on behalf of IPHA group: The Individualized Patient Progress System (IPPS): a decade of international collaborative networking. Couns Psychother Resin press
• [4]Ashworth M, Robinson S, Evans C, Shepherd M, Conolly A, Rowlands G: What does an idiographic measure (PSYCHLOPS) tell us about the spectrum of psychological issues and scores on a nomothetic measure (CORE-OM)? Prim Care Com Psych 2007, 12:7-16.
• [5]Orford J: Asking the right questions in the right way: the need for a shift in research on psychological. Addiction 2008, 103:875-885.
• [6]Ashworth M, Shepherd M, Christey J, Matthews V, Wright K, Parmentier H, Robinson S, Godfrey E: A client-centred psychometric instrument: the development of PSYCHLOPS. Couns Psychother Res 2004, 4:27-33.
• [7]Sales CMD, Goncalves S, Fragoeiro A, Noronha S, Elliott R: Psychotherapists openness to routine naturalistic idiographic research. Ment Health Learn Disab Res Pract 2007, 145-161.
• [8]Ashworth M, Evans C, Clement S: Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: a comparison between a new patient-generated measure ‘PSYCHLOPS’ (Psychological Outcome Profiles) and ‘HADS’ (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). J Ment Health 2009, 18:169-177.
• [9]Lawton R, Seed P, Kordowicz M, Schofield P, Tylee A, Ashworth M: The use of a patient-generated mental health outcome measure (PSYCHLOPS) to explore perceived problems in patient with coronary heart disease. Brit J Gen Practin press
• [10]Alves P, Winstock A: Patients ’ knowledge about treatment for opiate dependence. The Psych 2011, 35:448-453.
• [11]Sales CMD, Gonçalves S, Silva IF, Duarte J, Sousa D, Fernandes E, Sousa Z, Elliott R: Portuguese adaptation of qualitative change process instruments. Portugal: the European Chapter Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy Research; 2007.
• [12]Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Mellor-Clark J, Audin K: Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Brit J Psychiat 2002, 180:51-60.
• [13]Sales CMD, Moleiro C, Evans C, Alves PCG: Versão Portuguesa do CORE-OM: Tradução, adaptação e estudo preliminar das suas propriedades psicométricas. Rev Psiquiat Clin 2012, 39:54-59.
• [14]Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW: The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Int Med 16:606-613.
• [15]Marsden J, Farrell M, Bradbury C, Dale-Perera A, Eastwood B, Roxburgh M, Taylor S: Development of the Treatment Outcomes Profile. Addiction 2008, 103:1450-60.
• [16]Jones A, Donmall M, Millar T, Moody A, Weston S, Anderson T, et al.: The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): Final outcomes report. England, UK: Home Office; 2009.
• [17]Crawford MJ, Robotham D, Thana L, Patterson S, Weaver T, Barber R, et al.: Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users. J Ment Health 2011, 20:336-346.
• [18]Stone C, Elliott R: Clients’ experience of research within a clinic setting. Couns Psychol Rev 2012, 26:71-86.
• [19]Crawford M: Service user experience in adult mental health: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS mental health services. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2011.