Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26184686›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2015

Development and evaluation of an Individualized Outcome Measure (IOM) for randomized controlled trials in mental health.

Francesca Pesola, Julie Williams, Victoria Bird, Marion Freidl, Clair Le Boutillier, Mary Leamy, Rob Macpherson, Mike Slade

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The utility of patient-reported outcome measures in mental health.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesca PesolaKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Julie WilliamsKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Victoria BirdKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Marion FreidlKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Clair Le BoutillierKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Mary LeamyKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.
Rob MacphersonLeckhampton Lodge, Charlton Lane, Cheltenham, UK.
Mike SladeKing's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pre-defined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualized approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualized Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n = 20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalized Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a pre-defined list at baseline, and complete a standardized questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n = 84). IOM was then evaluated in a RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Indexed as

Mental HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsYoung Adultindividualized outcomemental healthpersonalized measurerandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID26184686
PMCPMC6878370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.