Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Service Provider and Medication Usage Grids: A New Method to Measure “Treatment as Usual” (TAU)

  • Published:
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reviews the creation and evaluation of two instruments that measure “treatment as usual” (TAU) in a clinical research setting. The Service Provider and Medication Usage Grids were developed to assess children’s past and current utilization of mental health services and medications. A pilot study revealed that compared to information gathered from other sources, these instruments provide an accurate method to assess, record, and track TAU in clinical studies. In addition, these instruments provide a clear and concise way to organize this information and do not require much time to administer. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angold, A., Erkanli, A., Costello, E. J., & Rutter, M. (1996). Precision, reliability, and accuracy in the dating of symptom onsets in child and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 657–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ascher, B. H., Farmer, E. M. Z., Burns, B. J., & Angold, A. (1996). The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA): description and psychometrics. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 4, 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (2008). Why don’t we have effective mental health services? Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 35, 437–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, B. J. (1999). A call for a mental health services research agenda for youth with serious emotional disturbance. Mental Health Services Research, 1, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J. W. (2009). Causal relationships between background characteristics, service utilization, satisfaction, and service outcomes (school performance): A path analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 957–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, J. (2006). A comparison group study of solution-focused therapy versus “treatment-as-usual” for behavior problems in children. Journal of Social Service Research, 33, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, E. M. Z., Angold, A., Burns, B. J., & Costello, E. J. (1994). Reliability of self-reported service use: Test-retest consistency of children’s responses to the Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2010). America’s children in brief: Key national indicators of well-being, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoagwood, K., Horwitz, S., Stiffman, A., Weisz, J., Bean, D., Rae, D., et al. (2000). Concordance between parent reports of children’s mental health services and service records: The Services Assessment for Children and Adolescents (SACA). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoagwood, K. E., Jensen, P. S., Arnold, L. E., Roper, M., Severe, J., Odbert, C., et al. (2004). Reliability of the services for children and adolescents–parent interview. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1345–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. M., Hoagwood, K., Stiffman, A. R., Summerfeld, T., Weisz, J. R., Costello, E. J., et al. (2001). Reliability of the services assessment for children and adolescents. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1088–1094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Roper, M., Arnold, L. E., Odbert, C., Crowe, M., et al. (2004). The services for children and adolescents–parent interview: Development and performance characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1334–1344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, L. G., Steinwachs, D. M., & Hankin, J. (1980). Episodes of psychiatric utilization. Medical Care, 18, 1219–1227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian, R., & Angermeyer, M. (1999). Quality of life in psychiatry as an ethical duty: From the clinical to the societal perspective. Psychopathology, 32, 127–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mendenhall, A. N., Fristad, M. A., & Early, T. J. (2009). Factors influencing service utilization and mood symptom severity in children with mood disorders: Effects of multi-family psychoeducation groups (MFPG). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 463–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Mental Health. (2002). Treatment as usual: Measurement, design, and ethics. Invited workshop held by the National Institute of Mental Health. Rockville, Maryland: Division of Services and Intervention Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noser, K., & Bickman, L. (2000). Quality indicators of children’s mental health services: Do they predict improved client outcomes? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruffolo, M. C., Kuhn, M. T., & Evans, M. E. (2005). Support, empowerment, and education: A study of multiple family group psychoeducation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisz, J. R. (2004). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents: Evidence-based treatments and case examples. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weisz, J. R., Donenberg, G. R., Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (1995). Bridging the gap between laboratory and clinic in child and adolescent psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 688–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS, 66044, USA

    Amy N. Mendenhall

  2. Rochester, NY, USA

    Kristen H. Davidson

  3. Departments of Psychiatry & Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Mary A. Fristad

Authors
  1. Amy N. Mendenhall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen H. Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary A. Fristad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy N. Mendenhall.

Appendix

Appendix

Service provider grid

Subject #: _____ Date: _____ Rater #: _____ Time: _____

Service/provider name

Provider type (1–13)a

Length (days)

Current?

Helpful? (1–5)b

How was it helpful/unhelpful?

Reason for addition/change

Reason for termination

1.

       

2.

       

3.

       

4.

       

5.

       

6.

       

7.

       

8.

       
  1. a1 = Psychiatrist; 2 = psychologist; 3 = pediatrician/family physician; 4 = social worker/other counselor; 5 = school services; 6 = school psychologist/counselor; 7 = psychological testing; 8 = inpatient hospitalization; 9 = residential treatment; 10 = respite; 11 = bibliotherapy; 12 = online support groups; 13 = crisis intervention; 96 = none; 97 = other
  2. b1 = Not at all helpful, noticed no change, or made things worse; 2 = marginally helpful, better than nothing; 3 = somewhat helpful, definitely room for improvement; 4 = helpful, made a significant difference, but feel things “could be a little better”; 5 = very helpful, made a dramatic difference in child/family’s life

Medication usage grid

Subject #: _____ Date: _____ Rater #: _____ Time: _____

Medication (name)

Class (1–9)c

Dose

Length (days)

Current?

Why added/changed

Reason for termination

Effective? (1–5)d

How was it effective/ineffective?

Side effects?

How side effects managed?

1.

          

2.

          

3.

          

4.

          

5.

          

6.

          

7.

          

8.

          
  1. c1 = Anti-depressants/anti-anxiety; 2 = stimulants; 3 = anti-obsessional; 4 = mood stabilizer; 5 = antipsychotics; 6 = sleep medication (prescribed); 7 = over the counter medications (not including herbals); 8 = herbals; 9 = non-stimulant ADHD medications; 96 = none; 97 = other
  2. d1 = Not at all helpful, noticed no change or symptoms got worse; 2 = marginally helpful, noticed minimal change or symptoms did not get worse; 3 = somewhat helpful, noticed some change but symptoms still impairing; 4 = helpful, noticed considerable change, symptoms significantly improved, but are not completely managed (“could be a little better”); 5 = extremely helpful, symptoms significantly improved, dramatic improvement

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mendenhall, A.N., Davidson, K.H. & Fristad, M.A. The Service Provider and Medication Usage Grids: A New Method to Measure “Treatment as Usual” (TAU). Child Adolesc Soc Work J 27, 423–434 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0214-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0214-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation