The effect of technical support on clinician attitudes toward an outcome assessment instrument

  • Jennifer L. Close-Goedjen
  • Stephen M. Saunders
Brief Report

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of technical support on mental health clinicians' attitudes and use of an outcome assessment (OA) instrument. Technical support involved providing clinicians with the scored and profiled results of an OA instrument administered to their patients. It was predicted that temporary exposure to the instrument's uses would improve clinicians' attitudes toward the instrument and that improved attitudes would lead to greater use. The results indicated that subsequent to support clinicians' attitudes toward the instrument were generally more positive, as they had generally more favorable opinions, saw it as more relevant, and reported that it was relatively easy to use. Contrary to expectations, however, clinicians did not use the OA instrument more frequently or regularly after support. The implications for clinics seeking to implement OA protocols are discussed.

Keywords

Public Health Mental Health Health Promotion Health Psychology Disease Prevention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kramarow E, Lentzner H, Rooks R, et al.Health and Aging Chartbook. Huntsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burlingame GM, Lambert MJ, Reisinger CW, et al. Pragmatics of tracking mental health outcomes in a managed care setting.Journal of Mental Health Administration. 1995;22:226–236.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McLear SV. Mental health services. In: Sultz HA, Young KM, eds.Health Care USA: Understanding Its Organization and Delivery. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 1997:230–251.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broskowski A. Current mental health care environments: why managed care is necessary. In: Lowman RL, Resnick RJ, eds.The Mental Health Professional's Guide to Managed Care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1994:1–18.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dana RH, Connor MG, Allen J. Quality of care and cost-containment in managed mental health care: policy, education, research, advocacy.Psychological Reports. 1996;79:1395–1422.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hersch L. Adapting to health care reform and managed care: three strategies for survival and growth.Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 1995;1:16–26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Health Insurance Association of America.Group Life and Health Insurance: Part C. Washington, DC: Health Insurance Association of America; 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wells KB, Astrachan BN, Tischler GL, et al. Issues and approaches in evaluating managed mental health care.The Milbank Quarterly. 1995;73:57–76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings NA. The role of the psychologist: the managed care view. In: Schreter RK, Sharfstein SS, Schreter CA, eds.Allies and Adversaries. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 117–124.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouffard K. Physicians speak out on outcome measurement.Michigan Medicine. 1996;95:32–33.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenberg JM, Williams SV. Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior: can the fox learn to judge the chicken coop?Journal of the American Medical Association. 1981;246:2195–2201.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Linder JC. Outcome measurement: compliance tool or strategic initiative.Health Care Management Review. 1991;16:21–33.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gifford F. Outcome research and practice guidelines: upstream issues for downstream uses.Hastings Center Report. 1996;26:38–44.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kersten E, Wilkinson K, Wright S. Bringing staff on board: creating an outcomes project tied to continuous quality improvement in an adult community residential service.Evaluation and Program Planning. 1999;22:221–232.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lambert MJ, Lunnen K, Umphress V, et al.Administration and Scoring Manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45). Salt Lake City, UT: IHC Center for Behavioral Healthcare Efficacy; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware JE.SF-12 Health Survey. Boston, MA: Medical Outcomes Trust; 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenfield S, Nelson EC. Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings.Medical Care. 1992;30:23–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleinpell RM. Whose outcomes: patients, providers, or payers?Nursing Clinics of North America. 1997;32:513–520.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell LF. The treatment outcome pursuit: a mandate for the clinician and researcher working alliance.Psychotherapy. 1996;33:190–196.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walter C, Cleary M, Rey JM. Attitudes of mental health personnel toward rating outcome.Journal of Quality in Clinical Practice. 1998;18:109–115.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meadows KA, Rogers D, Greene T. Attitudes to the use of health outcome questionnaires in the routine care of patients with diabetes: a survey of general practitioners and practice nurses.British Journal of General Practice. 1998;44:1555–1559.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S. Attitude structure and function. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds.The Handbook of Social Psychology: Volume One. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 1998:269–322.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tesser A, Shaffer DR. Attitudes and attitude change.Annual Review of Psychology. 1990;41:479–523.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saunders SM, Covenant Behavioral Health Care.The Covenant Healthcare System Checklist: Report on Reliability, Validity, and Directions for Use. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mintz J, Mintz LI, Arruda MJ, et al. Treatments of depression and the functional capacity to work.Archives of General Psychiatry. 1992;49:761–768.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Linzer M, et al. Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders: results from the PRIME-MD 1000 study.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995;274:1511–1517.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Howard KI, Lueger RJ, Maling MS, et al. A phase model of psychotherapy outcome: causal mediation of change.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993;61:678–685.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    American Psychiatric Association.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Theis G, Saunders SM. The era of accountability in behavioral health care.Managed Care Interface. 1999;12:44–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Close-Goedjen
  • Stephen M. Saunders
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMarquette UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations