3,311
Views
119
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 336-346 | Published online: 19 Jul 2011
 

Abstract

Background. Little is known about service users' views of measures used to evaluate treatments in mental health.

Aims. To identify the views of people with psychosis and affective disorder about the relevance and acceptability of commonly used outcome measures.

Methods. Twenty-four widely used outcome measures were presented to expert groups of service users. Nominal group methods were used to develop consensus about the appropriateness of each measure. Comments made by service users about how outcomes should be assessed were also recorded.

Results. Group members expressed concern about the ability of some outcome measures to capture their experiences. Patient-rated measures were assessed as more relevant and appropriate than staff-rated measures, and the need to examine negative as well as the positive effects of treatments was emphasised. Specific concerns were raised about some widely used measures including the Global Assessment of Functioning and the European Quality of Life scale.

Conclusions. We consider it essential that service users' views are taken into account when selecting measures to evaluate treatment outcomes. Providing insight into views of users of mental health services, our findings serve as a starting point for discussion.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Angela Sweeny, Alison Faulkner, Joanna Fox and Jayasree Kalathil for their help with data collection and analysis and to Janey Antoniou, Neil Armstrong, Valerie Baker, Terry Bowyer, Humphrey Greaves, Michael Knight, Gary Molloy, Augusto Monteiro, Ros Newnham, Graham Peacock, Kay Sheldon, Roger Smith, Caroline Thomas, Jennifer Trite, Lauren Wright and others who attended the expert group meetings.

The study was funded by a project grant from the Mental Health Research Network.

Declaration of interest:

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 989.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.