![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
It is important to identify valid and acceptable outcome measures so that interventions evaluating common mental health problems can be assessed appropriately. Some advocate the use of generic preference-based measures claimed to be applicable for all health interventions, but others argue that they are insensitive for common mental health problems. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), to be used in cost-effectiveness studies in people with common mental health problems.
Method
The CORE-OM measure was tested for completeness, acceptability and responsiveness in a pilot study. Analyses for missing data, distribution of scores, and standardised response means (SRMs) were calculated.
Results
Missing data did not exceed 5% for any of the CORE-6D items both at baseline and follow-up. The overall comprehension rate was high, and only 19 participants (14%) requested clarifications to complete the questionnaire. As expected in a feasibility study, there was a small and non-significant SRM.
Conclusion
CORE-OM is a valid and acceptable instrument to evaluate quality of life for people with common mental health problems. More research is needed with larger sample sizes to compare CORE-6D with other condition specific quality of life instruments.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted by the University of Leeds School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee. The study also received approvals from the Ministry of Justice and the probation services involved (SoMREC/13/014 in December 2013 and NOMS approval in February 2014 (NOMS 2013-257)). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the ECO study team led by Dr Helen Elsey. We thank the AUHE information specialists team at the University of Leeds – Judy Wright, Thomas Veale and Rocio Rodriguez Lopez – for the literature search. Also, we would like to thank Professor Allan House for reviewing a preliminary version of the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Author contributions
All co-authors designed and carried out the research, conducted the analyses and wrote the paper.
Data availability
Participant consent was taken only for the purpose of this study therefore the data set is not publically available.
Notes
1 Mental health conditions is not the only special case and generic health-related quality of life quality measures have been found not sensitive in other diseases areas (Longworth et al., Citation2014).