Cited by 45Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatment

The impact of routine outcome measurement on treatment processes in community mental health care: approach and methods of the MECCA study

Open access
Priebe, Stefan, McCabe, Rosemarie, Bullenkamp, Jens, Hansson, Lars, Rössler, Wulf, Torres-Gonzales, Francisco, Wiersma, Durk·2002·Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale

Abstract

SUMMARY: Three issues characterise the background to the MECCA study: A) Throughout Europe, most patients with severe forms of psychotic disorders are cared for in the community. The challenge now is to make processes in community mental health care more effective. B) There are widespread calls to implement regular outcome measurement in routine settings. This, however, is more likely to happen, if it provides a direct benefit to clinicians and patients. C) Whilst user involvement is relatively ?" easy to achieve on a political level, new mechanisms may have to be established to make the views of patients feed into individual treatment decisions. The MECCA study is a cluster randomised controlled trial following the same protocol in community mental health teams in six European countries. In the experimental group, patients' subjective quality of life, treatment satisfaction and wishes for different or additional help are assessed in key worker-patient meetings every two months and intended to inform the therapeutic dialogue and treatment decisions. The trial tests the hypothesis that the intervention – as compared to current best standard practice – will lead to a better outcome in terms of quality of life and other criteria in patients with psychotic disorders over a one year period. This more favourable outcome is assumed to be mediated through different treatment input based on more appropriate joint decisions or a more positive therapeutic relationship in line with a partnership model of care or both. Moreover, the study will hopefully reveal new insights into how therapeutic processes in community mental health care work and how they can be optimised.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1121189x00005728

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Routine outcome measurement that clinicians received and used with patients to decide treatment jointly improved quality of life.

    “routine outcome measurement that was fed back to the clinician and used to make joint treatment decisions with the patient did lead to better quality of life 105”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Krupnick J.L., Sotsky S.M., Simmens S., Moyer J., Elkin I., Watkins J. & Pilkonis P.A. (1996). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy outcome: findings in the National programme. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64,532-539.
  2. McCabe R. & Priebe S. (in press). The terapeutic relationship in the treatment of severe mental illness: a review of methods and findings. International Journal of Social Psychiatry.
  3. Shepherd G., Murray A. & Muijen M. (1995). Perspectives on schizophrenia: the views of users, relatives and professionals. Journal of Mental Health 4,403-422.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Priebe, S., McCabe, R., Bullenkamp, J., Hansson, L., Rössler, W., Torres-Gonzales, F., & Wiersma, D.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale
Published
2002-09
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
198-205
ISSN
  • 1121-189X (ISSN-L)
  • 2038-1816
OpenAlex
W1997884239
Cited by
45
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
routine outcome measurement, community mental health services, psychosis, patient involvement in treatment decisions, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, therapeutic relationship
MeSH terms
Community Mental Health Services, Europe, Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Quality of Life, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review