Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=288 Randomized Double-blind Health Services Research

Enhancing Mental Health Care by Scientifically Matching Patients to Providers' Strengths

Mental Illness

Enrolled (actual)
288
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jul 2020
Primary outcome: Primary: Average Z-Scores for the Treatment Outcome Package-Clinical Scales (TOP-CS; Kraus, Seligman, & Jordan, 2005) — 0.57; 0.56 units on a scale — p=.02

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Scientific Match (Behavioral)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Primary completion
Sep 2019

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Average Z-Scores for the Treatment Outcome Package-Clinical Scales (TOP-CS; Kraus, Seligman, & Jordan, 2005)
0.57; 0.56 .02 sig
SECONDARY
Symptom Checklist-10 (SCL-10; Rosen, Drescher, Moos, & Gusman, 1999) Total Score
12.52; 12.06 .03 sig
SECONDARY
Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form, Patient Version (WAI-SF-P; Tracey, & Kokotovic, 1989) Total Score
66.75; 68.44 .65
SECONDARY
Outcome Expectation (OE) Subscale of the Credibility/Expectancy Scale (CEQ; Devilly, & Borkovec, 2000)
18.12; 19.15 .41
SECONDARY
Domain-Specific Impairment on the Most Elevated Domain of the Treatment Outcome Package-Clinical Scales (TOP-CS)
0.27; 0.28 .01 sig
SECONDARY
Early Treatment Discontinuation (i.e., Attending 2 or Fewer Treatment Sessions)
22; 22 .48
SECONDARY
Overall Provider Quality Subscale of the Treatment Outcome Package (TOP) Satisfaction Scale
5.01; 5.17 .44

Summary

Research has shown that mental health care (MHC) providers differ significantly in their ability to help patients. In addition, providers demonstrate different patterns of effectiveness across symptom and functioning domains. For example, some providers are reliably effective in treating numerous patients and problem domains, others are reliably effective in some domains (e.g., depression, substance abuse) yet appear to struggle in others (e.g., anxiety, social functioning), and some are reliably ineffective, or even harmful, across patients and domains. Knowledge of these provider differences is based largely on patient-reported outcomes collected in routine MHC settings. Unfortunately, provider performance information is not systematically used to refer or assign a particular patient to a scientifically based best-matched provider. MHC systems continue to rely on random or purely pragmatic case assignment and referral, which significantly "waters down" the odds of a patient being assigned/referred to a high performing provider in the patient's area(s) of need, and increases the risk of being assigned/referred to a provider who may have a track record of ineffectiveness. This research aims to solve the existing non-patient-centered provider-matching problem. Specifically, the investigators aim to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of a scientifically-based patient-provider match system compared to status quo pragmatic case assignment. The investigators expect in the scientific match group significantly better treatment outcomes (e.g., symptoms, quality of life) and higher patient satisfaction with treatment. The investigators also expect to demonstrate feasibility of implementing a scientific match process in a community MHC system and broad dissemination of the easily replicated scientific match technology in diverse health care settings. The importance of this work for patients cannot be understated. Far too many patients struggle to find the right provider, which unnecessarily prolongs suffering and promotes health care system inefficiency. A scientific match system based on routine outcome data uses patient-generated information to direct this patient to this provider in this setting. In addition, when based on multidimensional assessment, it allows a wide variety of patient-centered outcomes to be represented (e.g., symptom domains, functioning domains, quality of life).

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion:

  • Being 18-70 years of age
  • Being the primary, informed decision-maker for one's care
  • Willingness to be randomized to condition and to complete a few study-specific measures

Exclusion:

  • Being under 18 or over 70 years of age
  • Not being responsible for one's own treatment decisions
  • Unwillingness to be randomized to condition and/or to complete a few study-specific measures
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02990000). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search