Measuring patient-reported outcomes in psychosis: conceptual and methodological review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring patient-reported outcomes in psychosis: conceptual and methodological review

AU - Reininghaus, Ulrich

AU - Priebe, Stefan

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Background There are calls to use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) routinely across mental health services. However, the use of PROs in patients with psychosis has been questioned. Aims To examine the concepts and measures of four widely used PROs: treatment satisfaction, subjective quality of life, needs for care and the quality of the therapeutic relationship. Method We conducted a literature search of academic databases on concepts, characteristics and psychometric properties of the four PROs in patients with psychosis. Results Although numerous concepts and measures have been published, evidence on the methodological quality of existing PROs is limited. Measures designed to assess distinct PROs showed a considerable conceptual, operational and empirical overlap, and some of them also included specific aspects. The impact of symptoms and cognitive deficits appears unlikely to be of clinical significance. Conclusions The popularity of PROs has not been matched with progress in their conceptualisation and measurement. Based on current evidence, some recommendations can be made. Distinct and short measures with clinical relevance and sufficient psychometric properties should be preferred. Future research should optimise the validity and measurement precision of PROs, while reducing assessment burden.

AB - Background There are calls to use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) routinely across mental health services. However, the use of PROs in patients with psychosis has been questioned. Aims To examine the concepts and measures of four widely used PROs: treatment satisfaction, subjective quality of life, needs for care and the quality of the therapeutic relationship. Method We conducted a literature search of academic databases on concepts, characteristics and psychometric properties of the four PROs in patients with psychosis. Results Although numerous concepts and measures have been published, evidence on the methodological quality of existing PROs is limited. Measures designed to assess distinct PROs showed a considerable conceptual, operational and empirical overlap, and some of them also included specific aspects. The impact of symptoms and cognitive deficits appears unlikely to be of clinical significance. Conclusions The popularity of PROs has not been matched with progress in their conceptualisation and measurement. Based on current evidence, some recommendations can be made. Distinct and short measures with clinical relevance and sufficient psychometric properties should be preferred. Future research should optimise the validity and measurement precision of PROs, while reducing assessment burden.

U2 - 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.107615

DO - 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.107615

M3 - Literature review

SN - 0007-1250

VL - 201

SP - 262

EP - 267

JO - British Journal of Psychiatry

JF - British Journal of Psychiatry

IS - 4

ER -