Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

The short-term effect on alliance and satisfaction of using patient feedback scales in mental health out-patient treatment. A randomised controlled trial

Zeitschrift:
BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Marit By Rise, Lasse Eriksen, Hilde Grimstad, Aslak Steinsbekk
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-12-348) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. HG is a member of the board of the hospital trust where the study took place.

Authors’ contributions

MBR designed and implemented the study, collected, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote and completed the manuscript. LE contributed to the design and implementation of the study, to the interpretation of data, and to the writing and completion of the manuscript. HG contributed to the interpretation of data, and to the writing and completion of the manuscript. AS designed and supervised the implementation of the study, interpreted data, and contributed to the writing and completion of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

The main aim was to investigate the effect of using two brief feedback scales in mental health out-patient treatment six weeks after starting treatment, compared to treatment as usual. Hypotheses were that use of feedback scales would improve treatment alliance and patient satisfaction.

Methods

An open parallel-group randomised controlled trial was conducted in an out-patient unit in a mental health hospital in Central Norway. Eight therapists trained in using the feedback scales in the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) treated the intervention group. Seventeen therapists treated the controls, providing treatment without using feedback scales. The main outcome measures were treatment alliance and patient satisfaction.

Results

Seventy-five patients participated. There were no differences between the groups in the intention to treat (ITT) analyses on alliance (mean difference = 0.08, 95% CI −0.44, 0.59, p = 0.760) or satisfaction (mean difference = 0.24, 95% CI −1.85, 2.32, p = 0.819), and no statistically significant differences between the groups in the per protocol (PP, n = 58) analyses on alliance (mean difference = 0.32, 95% CI −0.84, 3.16, p = 0.137) or satisfaction (mean difference = 1.16, 95% CI −0.84, 3.16, p = 0.248) six weeks after the treatment started. The effect size in favour of the PCOMS group increased from 0.07 for alliance and 0.06 for satisfaction in the intention to treat analysis to 0.40 on alliance and 0.31 for satisfaction in the per protocol analysis. Among the other outcomes, the PCOMS group had better motivation for treatment (estimated mean difference ITT: 0.29, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.57, p = 0.05, PP: 0.28, 95% CI 0.04, 0.52, p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Six weeks after starting treatment, there were no effects on alliance and satisfaction from using two brief feedback scales. Since the per protocol analyses showed higher effect sizes, future investigations in a larger study with longer follow-up are warranted.
Zusatzmaterial
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12913_2011_2212_MOESM1_ESM.png
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe