Revisiting our approach to behavioral health referrals

,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,

doi:doi: 10.12788/jfp.0588

Applied Evidence

Revisiting our approach to behavioral health referrals

J Fam Pract. 2023 May;72(4):E1-E6 | doi: 10.12788/jfp.0588

PDF Download

References

1. HHS. 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Releases. Accessed March 29, 2023. www.samhsa.gov/data/release/2021-national-survey-drug-use-and-health-nsduh-releases

2. Barkham M, Lambert, MJ. The efficacy and effectiveness of psychological therapies. In: Barkham M, Lutz W, Castonguay LG, eds. Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: 50th Anniversary Edition. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2021:135-189.

3. Lewis CC, Boyd M, Puspitasari A, et al. Implementing measurement-based care in behavioral health: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76:324-335. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329

4. de Jong K, Conijn JM, Gallagher RAV, et al. Using progress feedback to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out, treatment duration, and deterioration: a multilevel meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;85:102002. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002

5. Carlier IVE, Meuldijk D, Van Vliet IM, et al. Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:104-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01543.x

6. Muir HJ, Coyne AE, Morrison NR, et al. Ethical implications of routine outcomes monitoring for patients, psychotherapists, and mental health care systems. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56:459-469. doi: 10.1037/pst0000246

7. Hannan C, Lambert MJ, Harmon C, et al. A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61:155-163. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20108

8. Castonguay LG, Boswell JF, Constantino MJ, et al. Training implications of harmful effects of psychological treatments. Am Psychol. 2010;65:34-49. doi: 10.1037/a0017330

9. Kraus DR, Castonguay LG, Boswell JF, et al. Therapist effectiveness: implications for accountability and patient care. Psychother Res. 2011;21:267-276. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2011.563249

10. Lilienfeld SO. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2:53-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x

11. Boswell JF, Constantino MJ, Kraus DR, et al. The expanding relevance of routinely collected outcome data for mental health care decision making. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43:482-491. doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0649-6

12. Lyon AR, Lewis CC, Boyd MR, et al. Capabilities and characteristics of digital measurement feedback systems: results from a comprehensive review. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43:441-466. doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0719-4

13. Teymoori A, Gorbunova A, Haghish FE, et al. Factorial structure and validity of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) scales after traumatic brain injury. J Clin Med. 2020;9:873. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030873

14. Kraus DR, Seligman DA, Jordan JR. Validation of a behavioral health treatment outcome and assessment tool designed for naturalistic settings: the Treatment Outcome Package. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61:285‐314. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20084

15. Boothroyd L, Dagnan D, Muncer S. Psychometric analysis of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire using Mokken scaling and confirmatory factor analysis. Health Prim Care. 2018;2:1-4. doi: 10.15761/HPC.1000145

16. Locke BD, Buzolitz JS, Lei PW, et al. Development of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms-62 (CCAPS-62). J Couns Psychol. 2011;58:97-109. doi: 10.1037/a0021282

17. Kraus DR, Boswell JF, Wright AGC, et al. Factor structure of the treatment outcome package for children. J Clin Psychol. 2010;66:627-640. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20675

18. McAleavey AA, Nordberg SS, Kraus D, et al. Errors in treatment outcome monitoring: implications for real-world psychotherapy. Can Psychol. 2010;53:105-114. doi: 10.1037/a0027833

19. Baxter EE, Alexander PC, Kraus DR, et al. Concurrent validation of the Treatment Outcome Package (TOP) for children and adolescents. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25:2415-2422. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0419-4

20. Gual-Montolio P, Martínez-Borba V, Bretón-López JM, et al. How are information and communication technologies supporting routine outcome monitoring and measurement-based care in psychotherapy? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:3170. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093170

21. Kraus DR, Bentley JH, Alexander PC, et al. Predicting therapist effectiveness from their own practice-based evidence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016;84:473‐483. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000083

22. Constantino MJ, Boswell JF, Coyne AE, et al. Effect of matching therapists to patients vs assignment as usual on adult psychotherapy outcomes. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:960-969. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1221

23. Constantino MJ, Boswell JF, Kraus DR, et al. Matching patients with therapists to improve mental health care. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2021. Accessed March 1, 2023. www.pcori.org/research-results/2015/matching-patients-therapists-improve-mental-health-care

24. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Crossing the Quality Chasm: Adaptation to Mental Health and Addictive Disorders. Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance-Use Conditions. National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed February 21, 2023. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11470/chapter/1

25. Boswell JF, Constantino MJ, Oswald JM, et al. A multimethod study of mental health care patients’ attitudes toward clinician-level performance information. Psychiatr Serv. 2021;72:452-456. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000366

26. Boswell JF, Constantino MJ, Oswald JM, et al. Mental health care consumers’ relative valuing of clinician performance information. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86:301‐308. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000264

Routine outcome monitoring– derived feedback can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ shows that measurement-based care yields a small but significant increase in therapeutic outcomes (d = .15). Use of measurement-based care also is associated with improved communication between the patient and therapist.⁵ In pharmacotherapy practice, measurement-based care has been shown to predict rapid dose increases and changes in medication, when necessary; faster recovery rates; higher response rates to treatment³; and fewer dropouts.⁴

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of measurement-based mental health care is the ability to predict deterioration in care (ie, patients who are off-track in a way that practitioners often miss without the help of routine outcome monitoring data).^6,7 Studies show that without a data-informed approach to care, some forms of psychotherapy or therapy with BHPs who are not sufficiently skilled in treating a given diagnosis increase symptoms or create significant harmful and iatrogenic effects.^8-10 Conversely, the meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ found a lower percentage of deterioration in patients receiving measurement-based care. The difference in deterioration was significant: An average of 5.4% of patients in control conditions deteriorated compared to an average of 4.6% in feedback (measurement-based care) groups. There were even larger effect sizes when therapists received training in the feedback system.⁴

Routine outcome monitoring without a dialogue between patient and practitioner about the assessments (eg, ignoring complete measurement-based care requirements) may be inadequate. A recent review by Muir et al⁶ found no differences in patient outcomes when data were used solely for aggregate quality improvement activities, suggesting the need for practitioners to review results of routine outcome monitoring assessments with patients and use data to alter care when necessary.

Measurement-based care is believed to deliver benefits and reduce harm by enhancing and encouraging active patient involvement, improving patient understanding of symptoms, promoting better communication, and facilitating better care coordination.³ The benefits of measurement-based care can be enhanced with a comprehensive core routine outcome monitoring tool and the level of monitoring-generated information delivered for multiple stakeholders (eg, patient, therapist, clinic).¹¹

A look at multidimensional assessment

The features of routine outcome monitoring tools vary significantly.¹² Some measures assess single-symptom or problem domains (eg, PHQ-9 for depression or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7] scale for anxiety) or multiple dimensions (multidimensional routine outcome monitoring).Multidimensional routine outcome monitoring may have benefits over single-domain measures. Single-domain measures and the subscales or factors of more comprehensive multidimensional routine outcome monitoring assessments should possess adequate specificity and sensitivity.

Continue to: Some recent research findings...