Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40306632›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Addiction Treatment Services in Belgium: Naturalistic, Longitudinal, Multicenter Cohort Study.

Amine Zerrouk, Charlotte Migchels, Clara De Ruysscher, Kim Fernandez, Jerome Antoine, Florian De Meyer, Frieda Matthys, Wim van den Brink, Cleo Lina Crunelle, Wouter Vanderplasschen

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

10 authors.

Amine ZerroukDepartment of Special Needs Education, Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2871-0691
Charlotte MigchelsDepartment of Psychiatry, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4942-490X
Clara De RuysscherDepartment of Special Needs Education, Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8601-1875
Kim FernandezDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0004-3444-9946
Jerome AntoineDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9890-200X
Florian De MeyerDepartment of Special Needs Education, Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0394-9145
Frieda MatthysDepartment of Psychiatry, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0900-1478
Wim van den BrinkDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8301-0121
Cleo Lina CrunelleDepartment of Psychiatry, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8798-0448
Wouter VanderplasschenDepartment of Special Needs Education, Ghent University (UGent), Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6513-4243

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditionally, treatment outcomes of service users with a substance use disorder (SUD) are measured using objective and provider-reported indicators. In recent years, there has been a shift toward incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to capture service users' perspectives on treatment outcomes and experiences.

objectiveThe OMER-BE (Outcome Measurement and Evaluation as a Routine Practice in Alcohol and Other Drug Services in Belgium) study evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of PROMs and PREMs in different SUD treatment services, using the recently developed International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Addictions. This paper presents the design and baseline characteristics of the study, indicators of attrition at 45-day follow-up, and the feasibility of the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in residential and outpatient services.

methodsA convenience sample of 189 treatment-seeking individuals with SUD from different inpatient (therapeutic communities and psychiatric centers) and outpatient treatment services was followed for six months. Sociodemographic characteristics; clinical factors; and PROMs including recovery strengths, quality of life, and global health were assessed at baseline and within 3 weeks after starting treatment. Additionally, PROMs and PREMs were measured 45, 90, and 180 days later. Comparisons were made between treatment modalities, and indicators of attrition at the 45-day follow-up were assessed using ANOVA and chi-square tests.

resultsBaseline differences were observed between the three treatment modalities regarding education, SUD treatment history, primary substance, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Self-Report scores. Overall, patients in psychiatric treatment centers had a higher education level and less polysubstance use, while outpatients had fewer previous SUD treatments but received relatively more often opioid agonist treatment. Inpatients reported more attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and higher SUD severity than outpatients. Additionally, recovery strength scores were significantly lower in the outpatient group compared to the other groups, particularly in the subdomains of "Substance Use," "Self-care," and "Outlook on Life." At the 45-day follow-up assessment, the attrition rate was 36.6%. Comparisons between participants who completed the 45-day follow-up and those who dropped out revealed that completers were significantly older, had a higher level of education, were more likely to live alone, and were more likely to have a mother born in Belgium. They also had higher average scores on the "Material Resources" domain of the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator, which includes questions about stable housing, a steady income, and effective financial management.

conclusionsEvaluating PROMs and PREMs appears to be feasible in a diverse group of treatment-seeking patients with SUD in Belgium. However, challenges remain for structural implementation in practice, especially in outpatient services. Routine monitoring of PROMs and PREMs has the potential to empower patients, service providers, and policy makers by providing a comprehensive understanding of service users' needs and treatment effectiveness.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresSubstance-Related DisordersAdultBelgiumCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicQuality of LifeSubstance Abuse Treatment CentersTreatment OutcomeaddictionICHOMinpatientInternational Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurementpatient-reported experience measurespatient-reported outcome measuresperspectivesPREMsPROMsprotocolrecoveryservicessubstance usesubstance use disorderSUDtreatmenttreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID40306632
PMCPMC12079064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.