Modelling candidate effectiveness indicators for mental health services

Burgess, P, Pirkis, J and Coombs, T (2009) Modelling candidate effectiveness indicators for mental health services. Australian And New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43 6: 531-538. doi:10.1080/00048670902873656

Author Burgess, P
Pirkis, J
Coombs, T
Title Modelling candidate effectiveness indicators for mental health services
Journal name Australian And New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0004-8674
Publication date 2009-01-01
Year available 2009
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1080/00048670902873656
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 43
Issue 6
Start page 531
End page 538
Total pages 8
Editor Peter Joyce
Place of publication United Kingdom
Publisher Informa Healthcare
Language eng
Subject C1
111714 Mental Health
9204 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health)
Abstract Objective: Although Australia and the UK have both made efforts to systematize outcome measurement in mental health services, surprisingly little attention has been paid to how best to analyse routine outcome data in order to determine how services are performing. Methods: Outcome data collected in acute inpatient and ambulatory mental health services across Australia during the 2006-2007 financial year were used. three approaches to measuring effectiveness were explored: effect size (ES); the reliable change index (RCI); and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results: The most conservative results were produced by the RCI and the least conservative by the medium ES statistic and the SEM. By way of example, only 38.0% of inpatient admission-discharge periods of care showed significant improvement for adults when the RCI was used, whereas 67.4% and 72.9% did so when the medium ES and the SEM statistics were used, respectively. Conclusions: In any routine outcome measurement exercise, the degree of effectiveness demonstrated by services will depend on the specific statistical indicator used to judge effectiveness. Routine outcome measurement has the potential to answer a range of crucial performance-related questions, but only if the same metric is used. Discussion of the appropriate statistical approach to take to facilitate cross-service, cross-area and even cross-national comparisons warrants attention.
Keyword effect size
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: 2010 Higher Education Research Data Collection
School of Public Health Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 20 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 23 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 18:10:51 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Public Health