Lower versus higher frequency of sessions in starting outpatient mental health care and the risk of a chronic course; a naturalistic cohort study.
Adult
Ambulatory Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Anxiety Disorders
/ psychology
Chronic Disease
Cohort Studies
Depressive Disorder
/ psychology
Facilities and Services Utilization
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Mental Disorders
/ psychology
Mental Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Personality Disorders
/ psychology
Psychotherapy
/ statistics & numerical data
Risk Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome
Anxiety
Chronicity
Depression
Personality disorder
Session frequency
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 07 2019
24 07 2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
accepted:
16
07
2019
entrez:
26
7
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
25
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An adequate frequency of treatment might be a prerequisite for a favorable outcome. Unfortunately, there is a diversity of factors that interfere with an adequate frequency of sessions. This occurs especially in the first phase of treatment, while the first phase seems vital for the rest of treatment. The aim of this naturalistic study was to explore the impact of the initial frequency of treatment sessions on treatment outcome in a diverse mental health care population. Anonymized data were analyzed from 2,634 patients allocated for anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders to outpatient treatment programs in a large general mental health care facility. Patients' treatment outcome was routinely monitored with the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45.2), every 12 weeks. Frequency of sessions was assessed for the first three months of treatment. Using Cox-proportional-hazard models, we explored the associations between initial frequency and improvement (reliable significant change) and recovery (reliable and clinically significant change). Improvement and recovery were associated with symptom severity and functional impairment at start of treatment, the year the treatment started, number of measurements, the treatment program (anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders) and receiving group therapy other than psychotherapy. In all diagnostic groups, both improvement and recovery were associated with a higher frequency of sessions during the first three months of treatment. For improvement, this effect diminished after three years in treatment; however, for recovery this association was sustained. In addition to severity at start of treatment and other predictors of outcome, a low frequency of initial treatment sessions might lead to a less favorable outcome and a more chronic course of the mental disorder. This association seems not to be limited to a specific diagnostic group, but was found in a large group of patients with common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders) and patients with a personality disorder. Despite organizational obstacles, more effort should be made to start treatment quickly by an effective frequency of session.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
An adequate frequency of treatment might be a prerequisite for a favorable outcome. Unfortunately, there is a diversity of factors that interfere with an adequate frequency of sessions. This occurs especially in the first phase of treatment, while the first phase seems vital for the rest of treatment. The aim of this naturalistic study was to explore the impact of the initial frequency of treatment sessions on treatment outcome in a diverse mental health care population.
METHODS
Anonymized data were analyzed from 2,634 patients allocated for anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders to outpatient treatment programs in a large general mental health care facility. Patients' treatment outcome was routinely monitored with the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45.2), every 12 weeks. Frequency of sessions was assessed for the first three months of treatment. Using Cox-proportional-hazard models, we explored the associations between initial frequency and improvement (reliable significant change) and recovery (reliable and clinically significant change).
RESULTS
Improvement and recovery were associated with symptom severity and functional impairment at start of treatment, the year the treatment started, number of measurements, the treatment program (anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders) and receiving group therapy other than psychotherapy. In all diagnostic groups, both improvement and recovery were associated with a higher frequency of sessions during the first three months of treatment. For improvement, this effect diminished after three years in treatment; however, for recovery this association was sustained.
CONCLUSIONS
In addition to severity at start of treatment and other predictors of outcome, a low frequency of initial treatment sessions might lead to a less favorable outcome and a more chronic course of the mental disorder. This association seems not to be limited to a specific diagnostic group, but was found in a large group of patients with common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders) and patients with a personality disorder. Despite organizational obstacles, more effort should be made to start treatment quickly by an effective frequency of session.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31340791
doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2214-4
pii: 10.1186/s12888-019-2214-4
pmc: PMC6657162
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Références
Clin Psychol Rev. 2015 Dec;42:179-92
pubmed: 26443228
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Aug;77(4):775-87
pubmed: 19634969
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2015 Jan-Feb;22(1):1-14
pubmed: 24115489
Personal Ment Health. 2014 Aug;8(3):228-37
pubmed: 24990645
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Dec;83(6):1097-107
pubmed: 26436645
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Apr;82(2):287-97
pubmed: 24447004
J Pers Disord. 2014 Aug;28(4):577-93
pubmed: 24256103
Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Dec;33(8):954-64
pubmed: 23988455
J Affect Disord. 2011 Sep;133(1-2):76-85
pubmed: 21496929
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;72(11):1102-9
pubmed: 26397232
J Affect Disord. 2009 Nov;118(1-3):60-8
pubmed: 19217669
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9
pubmed: 2002127
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2010 Sep;47(3):413-417
pubmed: 22402096
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Jun 30;15:137
pubmed: 26122891
Psychol Med. 2012 Jul;42(7):1383-96
pubmed: 22053816
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2015 Sep-Oct;22(5):426-42
pubmed: 24889151
Am Psychol. 1986 Feb;41(2):159-64
pubmed: 3516036
Braz J Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;34(1):92-100
pubmed: 22392395
J Affect Disord. 2013 Jul;149(1-3):1-13
pubmed: 23528438
Psychother Res. 2012;22(1):1-11
pubmed: 21943215
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 10;10(11):e0140771
pubmed: 26554707
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2016 Jan;44(1):118-22
pubmed: 24933408
J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr 15;213:78-85
pubmed: 28199892
Br J Clin Psychol. 2008 Nov;47(Pt 4):397-415
pubmed: 18625084
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 24;9(6):e100614
pubmed: 24959666
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Feb;80(1):93-101
pubmed: 22122290
BMC Psychiatry. 2012 Nov 08;12:192
pubmed: 23137143
Clin Psychol Rev. 2015 Aug;40:91-110
pubmed: 26094079
Psychother Res. 2011 Sep;21(5):608-19
pubmed: 21777115