ArticleLearning health systems2025
Pre-implementation patient, provider, and administrator perspectives of remote measurement-based care in a safety net outpatient psychiatry department.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Psychiatric measurement-based care (MBC) can be more effective than usual care, but health systems face implementation challenges. Achieving attitudinal alignment before implementing MBC is critical, yet few studies incorporate perspectives from multiple stakeholders this early in planning. This analysis identifies alignment and themes in pre-implementation feedback from patients, providers, and administrators regarding a planned MBC implementation in a safety net psychiatry clinic. Methods: We used interview guides informed by Conceptual Model of Implementation Research to gather qualitative pre-implementation attitudes about perceived Appropriateness, Acceptability, and Feasibility of an MBC measure (Computerized Adaptive Test-Mental Health; CAT-MH) from five patients, two providers, and six administrators. We applied rapid qualitative analysis methods to generate actionable feedback for department leadership still planning implementation. [Correction added on 22 January 2025, after first online publication: In the previous sentence, the word 'general' was replaced with the word 'generate'.] We used a multistep process to generate thematic findings with potential relevance for other similar mental health settings. Results: There was more attitudinal alignment across stakeholder groups regarding MBC's Acceptability and Feasibility than its Appropriateness. All three groups agreed that it was important to contextualize MBC for patients and providers, anticipate MBC's impact on patient-provider relationships, and consider the system's capacity to respond to patient needs unearthed by CAT-MH before implementation began. Our thematic analysis suggests: (1) Introducing MBC may complicate patient-provider relationships by adding a new and potentially conflicting input for decision making, that is, MBC data, to the more typical inputs of patient report and provider expertise; [Correction added on 22 January 2025, after first online publication: In the previous sentence, the word 'complicated' was replaced with the word 'complicate'.] (2) MBC poses theoretical risks to health equity for safety net patients because of limitations in access to MBC tools themselves and the resources needed to respond to MBC data; and (3) Tension exists between individual- and system-level applications of MBC. Conclusions: Our analysis highlights shifting treatment dynamics, equity considerations, and tension between individual- and population-level needs that our participants anticipated when planning for MBC implementation in a safety net psychiatry clinic.
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.