Comparing single-level and multilevel regression analysis for risk adjustment of treatment outcomes in common mental health disorders
- 52 Downloads
The aim of this paper is to compare single-level and multilevel regression analysis to obtain risk-adjusted outcomes from mental health care providers.
Subject and methods
The study population consisted of adult patients receiving treatment for common mental health disorders. The outcome was self-reported symptom level at post-test. Risk adjustment models were developed using single- and multilevel regression analysis. In the multilevel approach, a random intercept for each provider was included. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to estimate the proportion of variability in treatment outcome between providers. Spearman correlation coefficient of ranks was used to compare results between the two approaches.
The effects of most casemix variables on outcomes were similar for the two models. The ranking of providers in both methods was also quite similar (ρ = .99). The multilevel model estimated that 5.4% of total variability in adjusted post-test scores was explained by the provider factor.
The findings of risk adjustment of mental health outcomes are quite robust for the use of single-level or multilevel regression analysis in the current study. However, given the small but significant amount of variation in outcomes that is attributable to providers, the multilevel approach is recommended for dealing with outcomes when patients are clustered within providers.
KeywordsRisk adjustment Mental health care Multilevel analysis Outcomes
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The Dutch Central Medical Ethical Committee (CCMO) has ruled that Dutch Law regarding research with humans does not apply to the collection of anonymized information and, consequently, providing SBG with this data and analyzing anonymized data for the present study does not require additional informed consent from participants.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, (DSM-IV). American Psychiatric Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Arrindell WA, Ettema JHM (2003) SCL-90: Herziene handleiding bij een multidimensionale psychopathologie indicator. Swets & Zeitlinger, LisseGoogle Scholar
- Barkham M, Gilbert N, Connell J, Marshall C, Twigg E (2005) Suitability and utility of the CORE-OM and CORE-A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings. Br J Psychiatry 186:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.3.239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Beurs E (2008) Brief symptom inventory handleiding. PITS B.V, LeidenGoogle Scholar
- de Beurs E (2010) De genormaliseerde T-score, Een “euro” voor testuitslagen. MGv 65:685–696Google Scholar
- Derogatis LR (1975a) The symptom checklist-90-R. Clinical Psychometric Research, Inc, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Derogatis LR (1975b) The brief symptom inventory. Clinical Psychometric Research, Inc, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Iezzoni LE (2013) Risk adjustment for measuring healthcare outcomes, 4rd edn. Health Administration, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Israels A (2013) Methods of standardisation. Statistics Netherlands: The Hague/Heerlen. https://www.cbs.nl/nr/rdonlyres/0579a307-01ef-43ca-8e29-c45b46334903/0/2013x3702.pdf
- Lange A, Appelo M (2007) Korte Klachtenlijst, handleiding. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, HoutenGoogle Scholar
- Lambert MJ, Gregersen AT, Burlingame GM (2004) The outcome questionnaire 45. In: Maruish M (ed) The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment: instruments for adults. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 191–234Google Scholar
- Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales Second edition. Psychology Foundation, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar