Use of Outcomes Information in Child Mental Health Treatment: Results From a Pilot Study

Stein, Bradley D.; Kogan, Jane N.; Hutchison, Shari L.; Magee, Emily; Sorbero, Mark J.

doi:10.1176/ps.2010.61.12.1211

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this complexity should not be used as justification to avoid measurement. While more research is clearly needed to optimize both the efficiency and validity of outcome measurement feedback systems, we should be capitalizing on the use of currently available systems that have evidence supporting their potential validity and impact on improved clinical outcomes (e.g., Bickman et al 2011; Reimer et al 2012; Stein et al 2010). Unfortunately, there is limited evidence of broad adoption of feedback measurement systems in UC.…”

Section: Target Area #3: Outcome Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the past decade, there has been considerable progress in the development of potentially effective and efficient outcome measurement systems that have been utilized at the state or county level by public service systems and UC provider organizations (e.g., Bickman 2012; Daleiden and Chorpita 2005; Healy and Roth 2010; Hodges and Wotring 2004; Reimer et al 2012; Rouse et al 1998; Stein et al 2010; Trask and Garland 2011). For example, since 2008, Hawaii’s child and adolescent mental health system has used a feedback system whereby agencies receive semi-annual reports documenting client outcomes on the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and Monthly Treatment Progress Summary (MTPS).…”

Section: Target Area #3: Outcome Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Community-Based Mental Health Care for Children: Translating Knowledge into Action

Garland

Haine‐Schlagel

Brookman‐Frazee

et al. 2012

Adm Policy Ment Health

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is urgent need for improvement in community-based mental health care for children and families. Multiple studies have documented serious limitations in the effectiveness of “usual care.” Fortunately, many empirically-supported strategies to improve care have been developed, and thus there is now a great deal of knowledge available to address this significant public health problem. The goal of this selective review is to highlight and synthesize that empirically-supported knowledge to stimulate and facilitate the needed translation of knowledge into action. The review provides a sound foundation for constructing improved services by consolidating descriptive data on the status quo in children’s mental health care, as well as evidence for an array of promising strategies to improve (a) Service access and engagement; (b) Delivery of evidence-based practices; and (c) Outcome accountability. A multi-level framework is used to highlight recommended care improvement targets.

show abstract

Section: Target Area #3: Outcome Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Target Area #3: Outcome Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Community-Based Mental Health Care for Children: Translating Knowledge into Action

Garland

Haine‐Schlagel

Brookman‐Frazee

et al. 2012

Adm Policy Ment Health

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, it is unclear to what extent ROM findings with adults can be generalised to children and young people, however, the first randomised trial examining this suggests that when clinicians had weekly feedback young people improved faster than those whose clinicians did not (Bickman, Kelley, Breda, de, & Riemer, 2011). Other findings indicate that families reporting discussion of weekly feedback at higher rates also described enhanced therapeutic relationships and child functioning (Stein, Kogan, Hutchison, Magee, & Sorbero, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Session-by-session outcome monitoring in CAMHS: clinicians’ beliefs

James

Elgie²,

Adams

et al. 2015

Cogn Behav Therap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Session-by-session ROM in CAMHS 1 Session-by-session outcome monitoring in CAMHS: Clinicians beliefs. AbstractThe CYP-IAPT programme emphasises the meaningful contribution session-by-session routine outcome monitoring (ROM) can make to clinical practice and its importance in highlighting services' effectiveness. Two studies on issues related to the implementation of ROM in children's services were conducted. Study one was qualitative; twelve CAMHS professionals participated in focus groups. Themes identified included the idea that ROM could provide objectivity, could be collaborative and empowering. Concerns included how measures may adversely influence therapeutic sessions and how the information may be used by the service. These themes were used to develop a questionnaire about professional's experience of and views on session-by-session ROM. In study two, 59 professionals from four CAMHS teams completed the questionnaire. It was found that only 6.8% reported "almost always" utilising session-by-session ROM. Detailed analysis of questionnaire responses suggested two factors reflecting the perceived negative and positive impact of session-by-session ROM. It was found that clinicians who currently use session-by-session ROM hold stronger positive and negative beliefs than clinicians who do not. This study suggests that session-by-session ROM is not currently routine practice within CAMHS and highlights the importance of considering how this practice can be best implemented within this setting with reference to clinician attitudes. Session-by-session ROM in CAMHS 2 Learning Objectives 1) To understand CAMHS clinician's attitudes and beliefs about the use of session-bysession routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in clinical practice 2) To explore clinicians views about session-by-session ROM through focus groups 3) To assess the characteristics of a questionnaire developed to elicit information about professionals demographic characteristics, attitudes towards, and current use of, session-by-session ROM 4) To consider the impact clinicians beliefs may have on the implementation of ROM

show abstract

“…By allowing for a high degree of standardization, rating scales and diagnostic instruments can contribute to many aspects of psychiatry (Shaffer et al 1999;Fitzpatrick et al 2011). First, standardized instruments provide measureable data that help clinicians make evidence-based diagnoses and assess function (Hodges 1993;Zanarini et al 2000;Gilbody et al 2002;Mazade and Glover 2007;Wolpert et al 2007;Garland et al 2010;Stein et al 2010;Bickman et al 2011;Follan et al 2011). Second, these tools are key to obtain replicable data in clinical trials and epidemiological surveys (Hoagwood et al 1995;Hoagwood et al 1996;Jensen et al 1996;Leaf et al 1996;Fonagy 1997;Kim-Cohen et al 2003;Galanter and Patel 2005).…”

Section: Rating Scales and Diagnostic Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rating scales and diagnostic instruments have become increasingly widespread in psychiatric care over the past decades , and together with evidence-based guidelines they increasingly assist decision-making for clinicians and patients (Kendall et al 2005;Wolpert et al 2006; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2008; BUP divisionen 2010; Stein et al 2010;Wolpert et al 2011). This development is in accordance with the fifth edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) draft, which suggests that assessment and diagnosis should be based at least in part on rating scales (American Psychiatric Association 2010).…”

Section: Rating Scales and Diagnostic Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Seminar and Computer Based Training on the Accuracy and Reliability of Raters Using the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS)

Lundh

Kowalski

Sundberg

et al. 2011

Adm Policy Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare two methods to conduct CGAS rater training. A total of 648 raters were randomized to training (CD or seminar), and rated five cases before and 12 months after training. The ICC at baseline/end of study was 0.71/0.78 (seminar), 0.76/0.78 (CD), and 0.67/0.79 (comparison). There were no differences in training effect in terms of agreement with expert ratings, which speaks in favor of using the less resource-demanding CD. However, the effect was modest in both groups, and untrained comparison group improved of the same order of magnitude, which proposes more extensive training.

show abstract

Use of Outcomes Information in Child Mental Health Treatment: Results From a Pilot Study

Cited by 22 publications

References 33 publications

Improving Community-Based Mental Health Care for Children: Translating Knowledge into Action

Improving Community-Based Mental Health Care for Children: Translating Knowledge into Action

Session-by-session outcome monitoring in CAMHS: clinicians’ beliefs

A Comparison of Seminar and Computer Based Training on the Accuracy and Reliability of Raters Using the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About