To critically examine the self-report measures most commonly used in Australian mental health research in the last 10 years.
Method:
A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted using seven outcome measures that were identified as most popular in 43 studies from three mental health journals.
Results:
Results suggest that the amount and type of language used in outcome measures is important in both increasing the accuracy of the data collected and fostering positive experiences of data collection for participants.
Conclusions:
Results indicate that many of the measures most often used in Australian mental health research may not align with the current contemporary philosophy of mental health clinical practice in Australia.
BanfieldMABarneyLJGriffithsKM. Australian mental health consumers’ priorities for research: Qualitative findings from the SCOPE for research project. Health Expectations2012; 17: 365–375.
2.
Commonwealth of Australia. A national framework for recovery-oriented mental health services: Guide for practitioners and providers. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2013.
3.
TrauerT.Outcome measurement in chronic mental illness. International Review of Psychiatry2010; 22(2): 99–113.
4.
GuthrieDMcIntoshMCallalyT. Consumer attitudes towards the use of routine outcome measures in a public mental health service: A consumer-driven study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing2008; 17: 92–97.
5.
StasiakKParkinASeymourF. Measuring outcome in child and adolescent mental health services: Consumers’ views of measures. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry2012; 18(4): 519–535.
6.
GreenoCGColonna-PydynCShumwayM.The need to adapt standardized outcome measures to community mental health. Social Work in Public Health2007; 23(2): 125–138.
7.
HardenAThomasJ.Mixed methods and systematic reviews: Examples and emerging issues. In: TashakkoriATeddlieC (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.New York: Sage, 2010, pp.749–774.
8.
Dixon-WoodsMCaversDAgarwalS. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology2006; 6(1): 35–48.
9.
EakinJMMykhalovskiyE.Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluative Clinical Practice2003; 9: 187–194.
10.
GreenCAEstroffSEYarboroughBJH. Directions for future patient-centered and comparative effectiveness research for people with serious mental illness in a learning mental health care system. Schizophrenia Bulletin2014; 40(Suppl.1) S1–S94.
11.
BeckAT.Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
12.
CorriganPWSalzerMRalphRO. Examining the factor structure of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin2004; 30: 1035–1042.
13.
KrollTWykeSJahagirdarD. If patient-reported outcome measures are considered key health-care quality indicators, who is excluded from participation?Health Expectations2011; 17: 605–607.
