ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Measurement-Based Care in a Remote Intensive Outpatient Program: Pilot Implementation Initiative.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ongoing mental health crisis, especially among youth, has led to a greater demand for intensive treatment at the intermediate level, such as intensive outpatient programs (IOPs). Defining best practices in remote IOPs more broadly is critical to understanding the impact of these offerings for individuals with high-acuity mental health service needs in the outpatient setting. Measurement-based care (MBC), or the routine and systematic collection of patient-reported data throughout the course of care to make meaningful changes to treatment, is one such practice that has been shown to improve patient outcomes in mental health treatment. Despite the literature linking MBC to beneficial clinical outcomes, the adoption of MBC in clinical practice has been slow and inconsistent, and more research is needed around MBC in youth-serving settings.
objectiveThe aim of this paper is to help bridge these gaps, illustrating the implementation of MBC within an organization that provides remote-first, youth-oriented IOP for individuals with high-acuity psychiatric needs.
methodsA series of 2 quality improvement pilot studies were conducted with select clinicians and their clients at Charlie Health, a remote IOP program that treats high-acuity teenagers and young adults who present with a range of mental health disorders. Both studies were carefully designed, including thorough preparation and planning, clinician training, feedback collection, and data analysis. Using process evaluation data, MBC deployment was repeatedly refined to enhance the clinical workflow and clinician experience.
resultsThe survey completion rate was 80.08% (3216/4016) and 86.01% (4218/4904) for study 1 and study 2, respectively. Quantitative clinician feedback showed marked improvement from study 1 to study 2. Rates of successful treatment completion were 22% and 29% higher for MBC pilot clients in study 1 and study 2, respectively. Depression, anxiety, and psychological well-being symptom reduction were statistically significantly greater for MBC pilot clients (P<.05).
conclusionsOur findings support the feasibility and clinician acceptability of a rigorous MBC process in a real-world, youth-serving, remote-first, intermediate care setting. High survey completion data across both studies and improved clinician feedback over time suggest strong clinician buy-in. Client outcomes data suggest MBC is positively correlated with increased treatment completion and symptom reduction. This paper provides practical guidance for MBC implementation in IOPs and can extend to other mental health care settings.
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.