Measuring psychological change during cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: a Polish study using 'PSYCHLOPS' (Psychological Outcome Profiles)

Slawomir Czachowski, Paul Seed, Peter Schofield, Mark Ashworth, Slawomir Czachowski, Paul Seed, Peter Schofield, Mark Ashworth

Abstract

Background: Psychological outcome measures are evolving into measures that depict progress over time. Interval measurement during therapy has not previously been reported for a patient-generated measure in primary care. We aimed to determine the sensitivity to change throughout therapy, using 'PSYCHLOPS' (Psychological Outcome Profiles), and to determine if new problems appearing during therapy diminish overall improvement.

Methods: Responses to PSYCHLOPS, pre-, during- and post-therapy were compared.

Setting: patients offered brief cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care in Poland.

Results: 238 patients completed the pre-therapy questionnaire, 194 (81.5%) the during-therapy questionnaire and 142 the post-therapy questionnaire (59.7%). For those completing all three questionnaires (n = 135), improvement in total scores produced an overall Effect Size of 3.1 (2.7 to 3.4). We estimated change using three methods for dealing with missing values. Single and multiple imputation did not significantly change the Effect Size; 'Last Value Carried Forward', the most conservative method, produced an overall Effect Size of 2.3 (1.9 to 2.6). New problems during therapy were reported by 81 patients (60.0%): new problem and original problem scores were of similar magnitude and change scores were not significantly different when compared to patients who did not report new problems.

Conclusion: A large proportion of outcome data is lost when outcome measures depend upon completed end of therapy questionnaires. The use of a during-therapy measure increases data capture. Missing data still produce difficulties in interpreting overall effect sizes for change. We found no evidence that new problems appearing during therapy hampered overall recovery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal′s policy and have the following conflicts: PSYCHLOPS has been copyrighted but is free for research use. A small initial charge is made for routine service use which is split equally between the patient user group who helped develop PSYCHLOPS and funding for future primary care mental health research projects. This does not alter the authors′ adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. Miller SD, Duncan BL, Brown J, Sparks J, Claud D. The Outcome Rating Scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy. 2003;2:91–100.
    1. Ashworth M, Robinson S, Godfrey E, Shepherd M, Evans C, et al. Measuring mental health outcomes in primary care: the psychometric properties of a new patient-generated outcome measure, PSYCHLOPS (Psychological Outcome Profiles). Primary Care Mental Health. 2005;3:261–270.
    1. Ashworth M, Evans C, Clement S. Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: a comparison between a new patient-generated measure, ‘PSYCHLOPS’ (Psychological Outcome Profiles) and ‘HADS’ (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale). Journal of Mental Health. 2008;18:169–177.
    1. Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Marshall C, Mellor-Clark J. Practice-based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. 2003;10:374–388.
    1. Barkham M, Connell J, Stiles WB, Jeremy NV, Margison F, et al. Dose–effect relations and responsive regulation of treatment duration: the good enough level. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006;74:160–167.
    1. Meehl PE. Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science. 1967;34:103–115.
    1. Rothman KJ. A show of confidence. New England Journal of Medicine. 1978;299:1362–1363.
    1. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. British Medical Journal. 1986;292:746–750.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1977.
    1. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care. 1989;27:S178–189.
    1. Schlomer L, Bauman S, Card NA. Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2010;57:1–10.
    1. Hamer RM, Simpson PM. Last observation carried forward versus mixed models in the analysis of psychiatric clinical trials. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2009;166:639–641.
    1. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John Wiley; 1987.
    1. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal. 2004;4:227–241.
    1. Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Barkham M, Moorey J, Davis G. Cognitive-behavioural therapy in two-plus-one sessions: a pilot field trial. Behavioural Psychotherapy. 1992;20:147–154.
    1. Devlin NJ, Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMS. Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. London: King's Fund; 2010.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe