RESUMO
Despite growing pressure for accountability, mental health professionals continue to debate the value of routinely measuring treatment outcomes. This paper sought to move the outcomes measurement debate forward by reviewing some of the current limitations in outcomes methodology and by providing initial strategies to address them. Using these strategies, we evaluated outcomes for a large diagnostically diverse group of adult outpatients receiving treatment as usual (TAU) within an academic medical centre. Initial self-report and clinician-rated assessments were obtained from 5546 patients, and follow-up data were obtained from 1572 (28%) patients. Using the subset of patients with the follow-up data, we determined treatment effect sizes, rates of reliable improvement (and deterioration) and rates of clinically significant improvement for all patients and for specific diagnostic groups (depression, anxiety, substance abuse, mood disorders not otherwise specified, bipolar and psychotic conditions). TAU outcomes for depression and anxiety were also compared with benchmarks derived from the randomized controlled trial literature. Lastly, the impact of patient or sample characteristics on outcome was explored. Overall, these findings generally support the benefit of TAU over no treatment while also highlighting both the utility and limitations inherent in the current approaches to evaluating treatment outcomes. Suggestions for improving outcomes measurement are provided.
