量化护理,合格经验:从患者和提供者的角度对精神病学中基于测量的护理进行系统回顾。

IF 4.9 0 PSYCHIATRY
Ayan Dey,Ze'ev Lewis,Josh Posel,Rachel Yunqiu Pan,Karen Wang
{"title":"量化护理,合格经验:从患者和提供者的角度对精神病学中基于测量的护理进行系统回顾。","authors":"Ayan Dey,Ze'ev Lewis,Josh Posel,Rachel Yunqiu Pan,Karen Wang","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2025-301663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nMeasurement based care (MBC) is a patient-centered approach that is gaining popularity in healthcare systems, particularly in mental health settings. However, attitudes towards MBC vary among mental health clinicians and patients, leading to variable implementation.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVE\r\nThis systematic review synthesises clinician and patient perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry.\r\n\r\nSTUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS\r\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL databases from inception to January 2024. After screening 1644 titles and abstracts, 48 full papers were reviewed, and 24 studies were ultimately included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and key patterns were extracted using thematic analysis.\r\n\r\nFINDINGS\r\nThe review reflects opinions of 901 patients and 2831 clinicians across various settings. Patients valued MBC for enhancing communication, self-awareness and reducing stigma. However, they expressed concerns about the adequacy of measures in reflecting their clinical state and uncertainty about how responses influence treatment decisions. Clinicians appreciated MBC for improving patient involvement, tracking treatment response and enhancing communication efficiency. Concerns included inadequate capture of clinical complexity, potential reporting biases, time constraints, insufficient training and concerns with respect to data usage and privacy.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS\r\nWhile patients and clinicians recognise significant benefits, including enhanced communication, improved insight and more structured clinical decision-making, they also identify important limitations. These include concerns about the adequacy of scales to capture complex clinical presentations, potential impacts on the therapeutic alliance and increased administrative burden. Moving forward, successful integration of MBC into routine care will require addressing these challenges through improved clinician training, clear guidelines for interpretation, greater transparency with respect to how data will be used and more seamless integration with existing clinical workflows.\r\n\r\nPROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER\r\nPROSPERO CRD420250651562.","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying care, qualifying experiences: a systematic review of measurement-based care in psychiatry from patient and provider perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Ayan Dey,Ze'ev Lewis,Josh Posel,Rachel Yunqiu Pan,Karen Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjment-2025-301663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nMeasurement based care (MBC) is a patient-centered approach that is gaining popularity in healthcare systems, particularly in mental health settings. However, attitudes towards MBC vary among mental health clinicians and patients, leading to variable implementation.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVE\\r\\nThis systematic review synthesises clinician and patient perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry.\\r\\n\\r\\nSTUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS\\r\\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL databases from inception to January 2024. After screening 1644 titles and abstracts, 48 full papers were reviewed, and 24 studies were ultimately included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and key patterns were extracted using thematic analysis.\\r\\n\\r\\nFINDINGS\\r\\nThe review reflects opinions of 901 patients and 2831 clinicians across various settings. Patients valued MBC for enhancing communication, self-awareness and reducing stigma. However, they expressed concerns about the adequacy of measures in reflecting their clinical state and uncertainty about how responses influence treatment decisions. Clinicians appreciated MBC for improving patient involvement, tracking treatment response and enhancing communication efficiency. Concerns included inadequate capture of clinical complexity, potential reporting biases, time constraints, insufficient training and concerns with respect to data usage and privacy.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS\\r\\nWhile patients and clinicians recognise significant benefits, including enhanced communication, improved insight and more structured clinical decision-making, they also identify important limitations. These include concerns about the adequacy of scales to capture complex clinical presentations, potential impacts on the therapeutic alliance and increased administrative burden. Moving forward, successful integration of MBC into routine care will require addressing these challenges through improved clinician training, clear guidelines for interpretation, greater transparency with respect to how data will be used and more seamless integration with existing clinical workflows.\\r\\n\\r\\nPROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER\\r\\nPROSPERO CRD420250651562.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2025-301663\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2025-301663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于测量的护理(MBC)是一种以患者为中心的方法,在医疗保健系统中越来越受欢迎,特别是在精神卫生环境中。然而,心理健康临床医生和患者对MBC的态度各不相同,导致实施情况不一。目的:本系统综述综合了临床医生和患者对精神病学中基于测量的护理(MBC)的利弊的看法。研究选择和分析我们检索了从成立到2024年1月的Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO和CINAHL数据库。在对1644篇标题和摘要进行筛选后,对48篇全文进行了审查,最终纳入了24项研究。使用混合方法评估工具进行质量评估,并使用主题分析提取关键模式。研究结果:该综述反映了不同背景下901名患者和2831名临床医生的意见。患者认为MBC可以加强沟通、自我意识和减少耻辱感。然而,他们对反映其临床状态的措施是否充分以及反应如何影响治疗决策的不确定性表示担忧。临床医生对MBC提高患者参与度、跟踪治疗反应和提高沟通效率表示赞赏。担忧包括对临床复杂性的把握不足、潜在的报告偏差、时间限制、培训不足以及对数据使用和隐私的担忧。结论和临床意义虽然患者和临床医生认识到显著的益处,包括加强沟通、提高洞察力和更结构化的临床决策,但他们也认识到重要的局限性。这些问题包括对衡量复杂临床表现的量表是否足够的担忧,对治疗联盟的潜在影响以及增加的管理负担。展望未来,将MBC成功整合到常规护理中需要通过改进临床医生培训、明确的解释指南、提高数据使用方式的透明度以及与现有临床工作流程的无缝整合来应对这些挑战。普洛斯彼罗注册号普洛斯彼罗crd420250651562。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying care, qualifying experiences: a systematic review of measurement-based care in psychiatry from patient and provider perspectives.
BACKGROUND Measurement based care (MBC) is a patient-centered approach that is gaining popularity in healthcare systems, particularly in mental health settings. However, attitudes towards MBC vary among mental health clinicians and patients, leading to variable implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review synthesises clinician and patient perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL databases from inception to January 2024. After screening 1644 titles and abstracts, 48 full papers were reviewed, and 24 studies were ultimately included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and key patterns were extracted using thematic analysis. FINDINGS The review reflects opinions of 901 patients and 2831 clinicians across various settings. Patients valued MBC for enhancing communication, self-awareness and reducing stigma. However, they expressed concerns about the adequacy of measures in reflecting their clinical state and uncertainty about how responses influence treatment decisions. Clinicians appreciated MBC for improving patient involvement, tracking treatment response and enhancing communication efficiency. Concerns included inadequate capture of clinical complexity, potential reporting biases, time constraints, insufficient training and concerns with respect to data usage and privacy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS While patients and clinicians recognise significant benefits, including enhanced communication, improved insight and more structured clinical decision-making, they also identify important limitations. These include concerns about the adequacy of scales to capture complex clinical presentations, potential impacts on the therapeutic alliance and increased administrative burden. Moving forward, successful integration of MBC into routine care will require addressing these challenges through improved clinician training, clear guidelines for interpretation, greater transparency with respect to how data will be used and more seamless integration with existing clinical workflows. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO CRD420250651562.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信