Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review
Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient–doc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological medicine 2002-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1345-1356 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1356 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 1345 |
container_title | Psychological medicine |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | GILBODY, S. M. HOUSE, A. O. SHELDON, T. |
description | Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient–doctor communication. However, their adoption is not without cost and the benefit of their use is unclear. Method. A systematic review was conducted. We sought experimental studies that examined the addition of routinely administered measures of HRQoL to care in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2000). Data were extracted independently and a narrative synthesis of results was presented. Results. Nine randomized and quasi-randomized studies conducted in non-psychiatric settings were found. All the instruments used included an assessment of mental well-being, with specific questions relating to depression and anxiety. The routine feedback of these instruments had little impact on the recognition of mental disorders or on longer term psychosocial functioning. While clinicians welcomed the information these instruments imparted, their results were rarely incorporated into routine clinical decision making. No studies were found that examined the value of routine assessment and feedback of HRQoL or patient needs in specialist psychiatric care settings. Conclusions. Routine HRQoL measurement is a costly exercise and there is no robust evidence to suggest that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of patients managed in non-psychiatric settings. Major policy initiatives to increase the routine collection and use of outcome measures in psychiatric settings are unevaluated. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0033291702006001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72730426</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0033291702006001</cupid><sourcerecordid>1410762841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-9d7049b024b811fd53891ad62e385e774b587303b5327e9b0949127a7caff5983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxiNERZfCA3BBFhIIDgH_jZMjKrSLtBLaAL1aTjJpXZJ4sZ3C3ngHrhz6LH2UPgmONmIlEOJkS99vZr6ZL0keEfySYCJffcCYMVoQiSnGGcbkTrIgPCvSvJD53WQxyemkHyb3vb-MACOc3ksOCeVCFIwtkp-lHYMZAOmmN4Pxwelg7IBsi5agu3CBSuh0gAatR92ZsJ2UlWkBPV-Wa7t6gfTQoAGg8Uh7D973MARkhthpnL4eBYtMv3H2CtDGb-sL29lzU-sOxcm17eHm-vb7j5trjfzWB-jj_Bo5uDLw9UFy0OrOw8P5PUo-nbz9eLxMV-9P3x2_XqW1wHlIi0ZiXlSY8ionpG0Eywuim4wCywVIySuRS4ZZJRiVEMGCF4RKLWvdtqLI2VHybNc3uvwygg-qN76GrtMD2NErSWM5p9l_QSG5FIRM4JM_wEs7uiEuoSjmIqaVkwiRHVQ7672DVm2c6bXbKoLVFLD6K-BY83huPFY9NPuKOdEIPJ0B7eORW6eH2vg9xzERUk4O0x0XM4dvv3XtPqtMMilUdrpWZ-UbnJ3QUp1Fns1mdV8505zDfqV_2_0FGOjOog</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204500681</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>GILBODY, S. M. ; HOUSE, A. O. ; SHELDON, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>GILBODY, S. M. ; HOUSE, A. O. ; SHELDON, T.</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient–doctor communication. However, their adoption is not without cost and the benefit of their use is unclear. Method. A systematic review was conducted. We sought experimental studies that examined the addition of routinely administered measures of HRQoL to care in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2000). Data were extracted independently and a narrative synthesis of results was presented. Results. Nine randomized and quasi-randomized studies conducted in non-psychiatric settings were found. All the instruments used included an assessment of mental well-being, with specific questions relating to depression and anxiety. The routine feedback of these instruments had little impact on the recognition of mental disorders or on longer term psychosocial functioning. While clinicians welcomed the information these instruments imparted, their results were rarely incorporated into routine clinical decision making. No studies were found that examined the value of routine assessment and feedback of HRQoL or patient needs in specialist psychiatric care settings. Conclusions. Routine HRQoL measurement is a costly exercise and there is no robust evidence to suggest that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of patients managed in non-psychiatric settings. Major policy initiatives to increase the routine collection and use of outcome measures in psychiatric settings are unevaluated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-2917</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8978</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0033291702006001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12455933</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSMDCO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Administration ; Biological and medical sciences ; Communication ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; England ; Health ; Hospitals, General ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - therapy ; Mental Health Services - economics ; Needs assessment ; Needs Assessment - economics ; Needs Assessment - standards ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards ; Outcomes ; Patients ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Psychiatric disorders ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Quality of Life ; Systematic review ; Systematic reviews ; Techniques and methods ; Treatment</subject><ispartof>Psychological medicine, 2002-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1345-1356</ispartof><rights>2002 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-9d7049b024b811fd53891ad62e385e774b587303b5327e9b0949127a7caff5983</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0033291702006001/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,778,782,12829,27907,27908,30982,30983,55611</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=14015776$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12455933$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>GILBODY, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOUSE, A. O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHELDON, T.</creatorcontrib><title>Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review</title><title>Psychological medicine</title><addtitle>Psychol. Med</addtitle><description>Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient–doctor communication. However, their adoption is not without cost and the benefit of their use is unclear. Method. A systematic review was conducted. We sought experimental studies that examined the addition of routinely administered measures of HRQoL to care in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2000). Data were extracted independently and a narrative synthesis of results was presented. Results. Nine randomized and quasi-randomized studies conducted in non-psychiatric settings were found. All the instruments used included an assessment of mental well-being, with specific questions relating to depression and anxiety. The routine feedback of these instruments had little impact on the recognition of mental disorders or on longer term psychosocial functioning. While clinicians welcomed the information these instruments imparted, their results were rarely incorporated into routine clinical decision making. No studies were found that examined the value of routine assessment and feedback of HRQoL or patient needs in specialist psychiatric care settings. Conclusions. Routine HRQoL measurement is a costly exercise and there is no robust evidence to suggest that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of patients managed in non-psychiatric settings. Major policy initiatives to increase the routine collection and use of outcome measures in psychiatric settings are unevaluated.</description><subject>Administration</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Hospitals, General</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - therapy</subject><subject>Mental Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Needs assessment</subject><subject>Needs Assessment - economics</subject><subject>Needs Assessment - standards</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards</subject><subject>Outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Psychiatric disorders</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systematic reviews</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><subject>Treatment</subject><issn>0033-2917</issn><issn>1469-8978</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxiNERZfCA3BBFhIIDgH_jZMjKrSLtBLaAL1aTjJpXZJ4sZ3C3ngHrhz6LH2UPgmONmIlEOJkS99vZr6ZL0keEfySYCJffcCYMVoQiSnGGcbkTrIgPCvSvJD53WQxyemkHyb3vb-MACOc3ksOCeVCFIwtkp-lHYMZAOmmN4Pxwelg7IBsi5agu3CBSuh0gAatR92ZsJ2UlWkBPV-Wa7t6gfTQoAGg8Uh7D973MARkhthpnL4eBYtMv3H2CtDGb-sL29lzU-sOxcm17eHm-vb7j5trjfzWB-jj_Bo5uDLw9UFy0OrOw8P5PUo-nbz9eLxMV-9P3x2_XqW1wHlIi0ZiXlSY8ionpG0Eywuim4wCywVIySuRS4ZZJRiVEMGCF4RKLWvdtqLI2VHybNc3uvwygg-qN76GrtMD2NErSWM5p9l_QSG5FIRM4JM_wEs7uiEuoSjmIqaVkwiRHVQ7672DVm2c6bXbKoLVFLD6K-BY83huPFY9NPuKOdEIPJ0B7eORW6eH2vg9xzERUk4O0x0XM4dvv3XtPqtMMilUdrpWZ-UbnJ3QUp1Fns1mdV8505zDfqV_2_0FGOjOog</recordid><startdate>20021101</startdate><enddate>20021101</enddate><creator>GILBODY, S. M.</creator><creator>HOUSE, A. O.</creator><creator>SHELDON, T.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021101</creationdate><title>Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review</title><author>GILBODY, S. M. ; HOUSE, A. O. ; SHELDON, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-9d7049b024b811fd53891ad62e385e774b587303b5327e9b0949127a7caff5983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Administration</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Hospitals, General</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - therapy</topic><topic>Mental Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Needs assessment</topic><topic>Needs Assessment - economics</topic><topic>Needs Assessment - standards</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards</topic><topic>Outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Psychiatric disorders</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systematic reviews</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><topic>Treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GILBODY, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOUSE, A. O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHELDON, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GILBODY, S. M.</au><au>HOUSE, A. O.</au><au>SHELDON, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Psychological medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol. Med</addtitle><date>2002-11-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1345</spage><epage>1356</epage><pages>1345-1356</pages><issn>0033-2917</issn><eissn>1469-8978</eissn><coden>PSMDCO</coden><abstract>Background. Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments has been advocated as part of clinical care to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems, to inform clinical decision making, to monitor therapeutic response and to facilitate patient–doctor communication. However, their adoption is not without cost and the benefit of their use is unclear. Method. A systematic review was conducted. We sought experimental studies that examined the addition of routinely administered measures of HRQoL to care in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2000). Data were extracted independently and a narrative synthesis of results was presented. Results. Nine randomized and quasi-randomized studies conducted in non-psychiatric settings were found. All the instruments used included an assessment of mental well-being, with specific questions relating to depression and anxiety. The routine feedback of these instruments had little impact on the recognition of mental disorders or on longer term psychosocial functioning. While clinicians welcomed the information these instruments imparted, their results were rarely incorporated into routine clinical decision making. No studies were found that examined the value of routine assessment and feedback of HRQoL or patient needs in specialist psychiatric care settings. Conclusions. Routine HRQoL measurement is a costly exercise and there is no robust evidence to suggest that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of patients managed in non-psychiatric settings. Major policy initiatives to increase the routine collection and use of outcome measures in psychiatric settings are unevaluated.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>12455933</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0033291702006001</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0033-2917 |
ispartof | Psychological medicine, 2002-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1345-1356 |
issn | 0033-2917 1469-8978 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72730426 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Administration Biological and medical sciences Communication Costs and Cost Analysis England Health Hospitals, General Humans Medical sciences Mental Disorders - diagnosis Mental Disorders - therapy Mental Health Services - economics Needs assessment Needs Assessment - economics Needs Assessment - standards Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards Outcomes Patients Physician-Patient Relations Psychiatric disorders Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems Psychopathology. Psychiatry Quality of Life Systematic review Systematic reviews Techniques and methods Treatment |
title | Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T22%3A26%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Routine%20administration%20of%20Health%20Related%20Quality%20of%20Life%20(HRQoL)%20and%20needs%20assessment%20instruments%20to%20improve%20psychological%20outcome%C2%A0%E2%80%93%C2%A0a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20medicine&rft.au=GILBODY,%20S.%C2%A0M.&rft.date=2002-11-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1345&rft.epage=1356&rft.pages=1345-1356&rft.issn=0033-2917&rft.eissn=1469-8978&rft.coden=PSMDCO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0033291702006001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1410762841%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204500681&rft_id=info:pmid/12455933&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0033291702006001&rfr_iscdi=true |