Person-Centered Versus Measurement-Based Care in Mental Health

Schizophrenia Clinical Trial

— PCORI-SDM  

Official title:

Amplifying the Patient's Voice: Person-Centered Versus Measurement-Based Approaches in Mental Health

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02507349
• Other study ID #: CDR-1306-02474
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: August 2014
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2017

Study information

• Verified date: February 2019
• Source: University of Pittsburgh
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Fifteen minutes is the typical length of an outpatient medication management appointment for people with serious mental health conditions. These brief interactions with prescribers are frequently provider-driven with insufficient time focused on the patient's needs and personal recovery. Shared decision making is a strategy that could improve this interaction. This study examines how technology can be used in the care process to amplify the voice of the patient, support shared decisions, and improve treatment outcomes.

Investigators will compare the effectiveness of Measurement-Based vs. Person-Centered Care on two primary patient-centered outcomes: the patient experience of care with medication treatment and the level of shared decision making. Investigators hypothesize that:

1. Person-Centered Care will result in greater improvement in patient experience of care with medication treatment than Measurement-Based Care.

2. Person-Centered Care will result in a greater level of shared decision making during the medication visit than Measurement-Based Care.

The study team will collect information from patients, caregivers, and clinic staff at different points in time during the study. Patients will be asked to complete questionnaires, and additional data on their service use will be gathered. Some patients and providers will also be interviewed about their experiences with care. Investigators are especially interested to learn if and how these two approaches are perceived to change medication treatment, if patients are more satisfied and empowered in their care, and why and how providers perceive and adopt changes to their clinical care.

Description:

An important attribute of patient-centered care is the active engagement of patients in making health care decisions. Despite advances in health care to support shared decision making, the patient experience of mental health care remains provider-driven. For individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), important decisions involve the choice of medications and how best to use medications to support individualized, person-centered recovery goals. By comparing the effectiveness of two approaches for promoting shared decision making around medication treatment on outcomes that matter most to individuals with SMI, the proposed study will advance ongoing and much-needed efforts to evolve toward a more personalized, recovery-oriented system of mental health care.

Building on the work of a multi-stakeholder collaboration, investigators will compare two interventions, Person-Centered Care and Measurement-Based Care, both focused on patient-prescriber interactions around medication treatment. The investigators' study will address three questions that patients have identified as important to them:

1. Are there ways I can be more involved in my care that will result in better outcomes?

2. How likely am I to benefit from improved communication with my prescriber?

3. How will shared decision making support my personal recovery and overall wellness?

Study aims will compare the effectiveness of measurement-based vs. person-centered care on the patient experience of care and on shared decision making. Investigators hypothesize that:

1. Person-Centered Care will result in greater improvement in patient experience of care with medication treatment than Measurement-Based Care.

2. Person-Centered Care will result in a greater level of shared decision making during the medication visit than Measurement-Based Care.

In addition, investigators will compare the effectiveness of the two approaches on seven secondary patient-centered outcomes, and examine differences in outcomes within the two approaches for subgroups of patients based on their: (1) current status regarding psychiatric medication, (2) engagement with the interventions, and (3) illness severity.

The target population is 2,460+ Medicaid-enrolled adults with SMI who receive medication treatment at one of 15 community mental health centers (CMHC). Using a prospective cluster-randomized design with a mixed-methods approach, investigators will randomly assign CMHCs to one of the two interventions. Quantitative (self-report, claims, process) and qualitative (interviews) data will be gathered at multiple time points across the two-year intervention period (baseline, 8 months, 16 months, and 24 months). Multi-level longitudinal analyses will examine the impact of the interventions on outcomes and explore the role of moderating variables. Qualitative data will be used to understand patient and stakeholder perspectives and to promote dissemination and sustainability.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 2443
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2017
• Est. primary completion date: October 31, 2016
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Adults age 18 and older

• Non-SMI (anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, dysthymia, depression NOS) or SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression)

• Receiving services at one of the 15 participating community mental health centers

• At least three claims for medication management services in past 12 months

• Insured by Community Care Behavioral Health Organization

Exclusion Criteria:

• Assessed by clinicians as being too ill to be treated on an outpatient basis

• Unable to speak, read, or understand English at the minimum required level

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Bipolar Disorder
• Depressive Disorder, Major
• Major Depression
• Schizophrenia

Intervention

Behavioral:
• Person-Centered Care
Decision support center staffed by peers. Patient uses the CommonGround program prior to medication visit to prepare a personal report, with support from peer(s). The CommonGround report expresses goals for medication, how other strategies help with functioning, current problems, and medication side effects. Patient brings report into the medication visit. Prescriber and patient discuss medication options, and prescriber enters the shared decision into CommonGround during the visit.
• Measurement-Based Care
Clinic staff asks each patient to use a tablet computer to complete a brief assessment of symptoms and problems prior to medication visit. Prescriber views assessment results on office computer and discusses next steps in medication management with the patient.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center	Lebanon	New Hampshire
United States	UPMC Center for High-Value Health Care	Pittsburgh	Pennsylvania

Sponsors (3)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Pittsburgh	Dartmouth College, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Patient Experience of Medication Treatment (PEMM)	The PEMM is a 12-item self-report measure of mental health patient experience of medication management with prescribers .Response options for 11 questions range from 0=Never to 4=Always, and the response options for the final question range from 0=Very Dissatisfied to 4=Very Satisfied. Overall possible range was 0 to 4. PEMM scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Primary	Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)	The SDM-Q-9 is a 9-item self-report measure of the degree of shared decision making in clinical encounters. There are 6 possible responses ranging from: Completely Disagree (0) to Completely Agree (5). Raw score ranges from 0 to 45. Multiplication of the raw score by 20/9 provides a score forced (transformed) to range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates the lowest possible level of SDM and 100 indicates the highest extent of shared decision making in clinical encounters. SDM-Q-9 scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Hope	Patient hopefulness will be assessed using a single question: "Overall, how hopeful does the patient feel about his/her life?" Responses are on a scale of 1 through 10 with 1=No Hope and 10=Filled with Hope. Hopefulness scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Medication Side Effects	Medication side effects will be assessed using a single question: "How much is the patient troubled by medication side effects?" Responses are on a scale of 1 through 10 with 1=Not Bothered at all by side effects and 10=Very Bothered by side effects. Medication side effect scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Patient Activation Measure (PAM)	PAM is a 13-item scale that assesses the knowledge, skills, and confidence of patients essential to managing their own health and health care. Response options are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The activation scale for the PAM ranges from 0 to 100. The lower values represent a poor outcome while higher values represent a better outcome. Overall possible range was 0 to 91.6. PAM scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-24)	The BASIS-24 identifies a wide range of symptoms and problems that occur across the psychiatric diagnostic spectrum. There are 5 ordered responses either ranging from No Difficulty to Extreme Difficulty or from None of the Time to All of the Time. Each of 24 questions is scored on a 5 point scale (from 0 to 4 where 0 is the lowest severity and 4 is the highest). The overall BASIS-24 score is a weighted sum that is computed by multiplying the rating for each question by its weight and totaling the weighted ratings for each question. Overall possible range was 0 to 3.99. BASIS-24 scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Sheehan Disability Scale	The Sheehan Disability Scale measures the extent to which three major sectors in the person's life are impaired by psychiatric symptoms (work/school, social/leisure life, and family/home life). The 3 items are summed together to form a single measure of global functional impairment that ranges from 0 (unimpaired) to 30 (highly impaired). Sheehan Disability Scale scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short Form (QLESQ-SF)	Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short Form is a 16-item, self-report questionnaire for assessing quality of life in multiple domains (e.g., physical health, mood, leisure time activities, social relationships, and overall). Response items are on a 5-point scale ranging from Very Poor to Very Good. The scoring of the Q-LES-Q-SF involves summing only the first 14 items to yield a raw total score. The last two items are not included in the total score but are standalone items. The raw total score ranges from 14 to 70. The raw total score was transformed into a percentage maximum possible score using the following formula. The lower values/percentages represent a poor outcome while higher values/percentages represent a better outcome. Overall possible range was 0-100. QLESQ-SF scores for each time point reflect the mean score of all measures collected within that time frame.	Baseline and every eight months during the two-year intervention phase
Secondary	Engagement in Medication and Evaluation Visit	Count of the number of medication checks and evaluation visits for each study participant for the 12 month period prior to and including the anchor date of the time point.	Baseline, 8 months, 24 months
Secondary	Engagement in Psychotherapy Visit	Count of the number of psychotherapy visits for each study participant for the 12 month period prior to and including the anchor date of the time point.	Baseline, 8 months, 24 months