ArticleBJPsych open2021
Evaluation of NHS Practitioner Health: capturing mental health outcomes using five instruments.
Article in BJPsych open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNHS Practitioner Health is the England wide programme providing mental health and addiction healthcare to doctors and dentists. Outcomes are assessed using five measures.
aimsTo contribute to a service evaluation of NHS Practitioner Health. To determine responsiveness to change and compare outcome measures.
methodMeasures were completed at baseline and 6 months: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale (WEMWBS), Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS). Responsiveness to change was determined using effect size with improvement threshold ≥0.80. Instruments were compared using Bland-Altman plots.
resultsOur sample, n = 402; with 14 (3.5%) excluded for missing data; final sample, n = 388. All measures showed strong mean effect sizes: PSYCHLOPS 1.86 (95%CI 1.73-1.99), 75.8% ≥0.80; PSS 1.48 (1.34-1.62), 64.4% ≥0.80; WEMWBS 1.24 (1.13-1.35), 58.2% ≥0.80; GAD-7 1.07 (0.96-1.18), 52.8% ≥0.80; PHQ-9 0.86 (0.76-0.96), 52.8% ≥0.80. Findings were largely unchanged after stratification by diagnosis, presenting problem or therapy type. Fifty (12.9%) participants did not reach the threshold for improvement on any instrument. Bland-Altman plots indicated generally strong agreement between measures; combining PSYCHLOPS with WEMWBS maximised capture of improvement with only 3.6% of patients lying outside limits of agreement; GAD-7 was most likely to duplicate recovery scores of other measures.
conclusionsPatients attending the NHS Practitioner Health service demonstrated high levels of improvement in mental health scores. The patient-generated instrument produced higher change scores than standardised instruments. Combining PSYCHLOPS and WEMWBS captured 96% of patients with above threshold improvement; GAD-7 added little to overall recovery measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.