The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Why Don't Psychiatrists Use Scales to Measure Outcome When Treating Depressed Patients?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A survey of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom found that only a minority routinely used standardized measures to assess outcome when treating depression and anxiety disorders. The goals of the present study were to determine how frequently psychiatrists in the United States use scales to measure outcome when treating depressed patients and, for those clinicians who do not regularly use such scales, to ascertain the reasons for the lack of use. METHOD: The subjects were 314 psychiatrists who attended a continuing medical education conference in California, Massachusetts, New York, or Wisconsin in 2006 or 2007. Prior to a lecture, the subjects completed a questionnaire that included 2 questions regarding the use of rating scales to monitor outcome when treating depression. RESULTS: More than 80% of the psychiatrists indicated that they did not routinely use scales to monitor outcome when treating depression. The most frequent reasons psychiatrists gave for not using scales were that they did not believe scales would be clinically helpful, that scales take too much time to use, and that they were not trained in the use of such measures. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of psychiatrists indicated that they do not routinely use standardized measures to evaluate outcome when treating depressed patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Physician Quality Reporting Initiative is intended to improve quality of care by providing physicians financial incentives to document outcomes reflecting best practices. If standardized outcome assessment is to assume increasing importance in this country, either educational efforts or payor mandates, or both, will be necessary to change clinicians' behavior.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, these programs do not reach all patients with mental disorders, and a majority of health care providers do not routinely apply measurement-based care 48,49 .”
From Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective (2018) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR THE Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder
Gelenberg, A. J., Freeman, P. B., Markowitz, J. C., Rosenbaum, J. F., Thase, M. E., Trivedi, M. H., & Rhoads, R. S. (2010) · Cited by 1,372
Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Behavioral Health: A Review
Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M., Puspitasari, A., Navarro, E., Howard, J., Kassab, H., Hoffman, M., Scott, K., Lyon, A., Douglas, S., et al. (2019) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329 · Cited by 605
“CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This narrative review, informed by implementation science, offers a 10-point research agenda to improve the integration of MBC into clinical practice: (1) harmonize terminology and specify MBC’s core components; (2) develop criterion standard methods for monitoring fidelity and reporting qual…”
A Tipping Point for Measurement-Based Care
Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G. L., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., & Harbin, H. T. (2016) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500439 · Cited by 592
Craske, M. G., Stein, M. B., Eley, T. C., Milad, M. R., Holmes, A., Rapee, R. M., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2017) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.24 · Cited by 652
Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions
Boswell, J. F., Kraus, D. R., Miller, S. D., & Lambert, M. J. (2015) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2013.817696 · Cited by 494
“Surveys spanning different countries indicate that few clinicians actually employ ROM in their dayto-day work (Gilbody, House, & Sheldon, 2002; Hatfield & Ogles, 2004; Zimmerman & McGlinchey, 2008).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Zimmerman, M., & McGlinchey, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- ORCID
- Zimmerman, Mark
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
- Published
- 2008-12-31
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1916-1919
- ISSN
- 0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092574656
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 12.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- depression, outcome measurement, rating scales, psychiatrists, clinician behavior, Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, quality of care, continuing medical education, anxiety disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Antidepressive Agents, Attitude of Health Personnel, Depressive Disorder, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychiatry, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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