Cited by 172Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesSchizophrenia research and treatment

Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users

Crawford, Mike J., Robotham, Dan, Thana, Lavanya, Patterson, Sue, Weaver, Tim, Barber, Rosemary, Wykes, Til, Rose, Diana·2011·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about service users' views of measures used to evaluate treatments in mental health. AIMS: To identify the views of people with psychosis and affective disorder about the relevance and acceptability of commonly used outcome measures. METHODS: Twenty-four widely used outcome measures were presented to expert groups of service users. Nominal group methods were used to develop consensus about the appropriateness of each measure. Comments made by service users about how outcomes should be assessed were also recorded. RESULTS: Group members expressed concern about the ability of some outcome measures to capture their experiences. Patient-rated measures were assessed as more relevant and appropriate than staff-rated measures, and the need to examine negative as well as the positive effects of treatments was emphasised. Specific concerns were raised about some widely used measures including the Global Assessment of Functioning and the European Quality of Life scale. CONCLUSIONS: We consider it essential that service users' views are taken into account when selecting measures to evaluate treatment outcomes. Providing insight into views of users of mental health services, our findings serve as a starting point for discussion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09638237.2011.577114

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Critics of the clinical recovery model have highlighted limitations regarding lack of sensitivity to variability across individuals and contexts, and not including outcomes meaningful to service users.

    “However, critics of the clinical recovery model have highlighted limitations regarding the lack of sensitivity to variability across individuals and contexts, and not including outcomes that are meaningful to service users (7).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crawford, M. J., Robotham, D., Thana, L., Patterson, S., Weaver, T., Barber, R., Wykes, T., & Rose, D.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Mental Health (GB)
  • Mental Health Foundation (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Crawford, Mike J.
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2011-07-19
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
336-346
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W2106736493
Cited by
172
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 7
FWCI
25.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1050)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
outcome measures, service user perspectives, mental health services, psychosis, mood disorders, Global Assessment of Functioning, EQ-5D, treatment outcome assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, London, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Mood Disorders

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