TY - JOUR
T1 - Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety
T2 - recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group
AU - Obbarius, Alexander
AU - van Maasakkers, Lisa
AU - Baer, Lee
AU - Clark, David M.
AU - Crocker, Anne G.
AU - de Beurs, Edwin
AU - Emmelkamp, Paul M. G.
AU - Furukawa, Toshi A.
AU - Hedman-Lagerlöf, Erik
AU - Kangas, Maria
AU - Langford, Lucie
AU - Lesage, Alain
AU - Mwesigire, Doris M.
AU - Nolte, Sandra
AU - Patel, Vikram
AU - Pilkonis, Paul A.
AU - Pincus, Harold A.
AU - Reis, Roberta A.
AU - Rojas, Graciela
AU - Sherbourne, Cathy
AU - Smithson, Dave
AU - Stowell, Caleb
AU - Woolaway-Bickel, Kelly
AU - Rose, Matthias
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2017. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - Purpose: National initiatives, such as the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program (IAPT), demonstrate the feasibility of conducting empirical mental health assessments on a large scale, and similar initiatives exist in other countries. However, there is a lack of international consensus on which outcome domains are most salient to monitor treatment progress and how they should be measured. The aim of this project was to propose (1) an essential set of outcome domains relevant across countries and cultures, (2) a set of easily accessible patient-reported instruments, and (3) a psychometric approach to make scores from different instruments comparable. Methods: Twenty-four experts, including ten health outcomes researchers, ten clinical experts from all continents, two patient advocates, and two ICHOM coordinators worked for seven months in a consensus building exercise to develop recommendations based on existing evidence using a structured consensus-driven modified Delphi technique. Results: The group proposes to combine an assessment of potential outcome predictors at baseline (47 items: demographics, functional, clinical status, etc.), with repeated assessments of disease-specific symptoms during the treatment process (19 items: symptoms, side effects, etc.), and a comprehensive annual assessment of broader treatment outcomes (45 items: remission, absenteeism, etc.). Further, it is suggested reporting disease-specific symptoms for depression and anxiety on a standardized metric to increase comparability with other legacy instruments. All recommended instruments are provided online (www.ichom.org). Conclusion: An international standard of health outcomes assessment has the potential to improve clinical decision making, enhance health care for the benefit of patients, and facilitate scientific knowledge.
AB - Purpose: National initiatives, such as the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program (IAPT), demonstrate the feasibility of conducting empirical mental health assessments on a large scale, and similar initiatives exist in other countries. However, there is a lack of international consensus on which outcome domains are most salient to monitor treatment progress and how they should be measured. The aim of this project was to propose (1) an essential set of outcome domains relevant across countries and cultures, (2) a set of easily accessible patient-reported instruments, and (3) a psychometric approach to make scores from different instruments comparable. Methods: Twenty-four experts, including ten health outcomes researchers, ten clinical experts from all continents, two patient advocates, and two ICHOM coordinators worked for seven months in a consensus building exercise to develop recommendations based on existing evidence using a structured consensus-driven modified Delphi technique. Results: The group proposes to combine an assessment of potential outcome predictors at baseline (47 items: demographics, functional, clinical status, etc.), with repeated assessments of disease-specific symptoms during the treatment process (19 items: symptoms, side effects, etc.), and a comprehensive annual assessment of broader treatment outcomes (45 items: remission, absenteeism, etc.). Further, it is suggested reporting disease-specific symptoms for depression and anxiety on a standardized metric to increase comparability with other legacy instruments. All recommended instruments are provided online (www.ichom.org). Conclusion: An international standard of health outcomes assessment has the potential to improve clinical decision making, enhance health care for the benefit of patients, and facilitate scientific knowledge.
KW - depression
KW - anxiety
KW - patient-reported outcomes
KW - health-related quality of life
KW - standardization
KW - outcome Set
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026922750&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-017-1659-5
DO - 10.1007/s11136-017-1659-5
M3 - Article
VL - 26
SP - 3211
EP - 3225
JO - Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
JF - Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
SN - 0962-9343
IS - 12
ER -