Top

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Evidence Based Practice

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2016 | Toepassing in de praktijk

Verschillen tussen behandelaars in het omgaan met routinematige uitkomstmetingen

Auteur: dr. Kim de Jong

Gepubliceerd in: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Evidence Based Practice | Uitgave 2/2016

Samenvatting

Steeds meer disciplines in de gezondheidszorg meten behandeluitkomsten (PROM). Niet alle behandelaars gebruiken deze metingen echter om de behandeling van de individuele patiënten te verbeteren. Dit artikel geeft een samenvatting van het onderzoek naar verschillen tussen behandelaars in het omgaan met routinematige uitkomstmetingen.

vorige artikel Numbers telling the tale? On the validity of patient experience surveys and the usability of their results

volgende artikel Edwin de Beurs: ‘Routine Outcome Monitoring volgt verloop van behandeling in ggz’

1).

Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R, Impact of patientreported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12(5):559–568.CrossRefPubMed

2).

van Kessel P, Triemstra M, de Boer D, Patient Reported Outcome Measures. 2014.

3).

GGZ, S.B. 2016. Available from: http://www.sbggz.nl/ Benchmarken?contentitem = eadc77f5-f95e-4672-a8d8-f73fddc90036& paragraph = 3769ecfe-1942-42a7-823 f- 8141130bbfa0#Benchmarken-≠-ROM-≠-verantwoorden-≠- afrekenen.

4).

Kendrick T, et al. Routine use of patient reported outcome measures for improving treatment of common mental health diorders in adults. The Cochrane Library, submitted.

5).

Carlier IVE, et al. Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18:104–110.CrossRef

6).

Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13(1):1–24.CrossRef

7).

Shimokawa K, Lambert MJ, Smart DW. Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010;78:298–311.CrossRefPubMed

8).

Sapyta J, Riemer M, Bickman L. Feedback to clinicians: theory, research and practice. J Clin Psychol: In Session 2005; 61(2):145–153.CrossRefPubMed

9).

Kotronoulas G, et al. What is the value of the routine use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2014.

10).

Riemer M, Bickman L. Using program theory to link social psychology and program evaluation. In: Mark MM, Donaldson SI, Campbell B, Editors. Social psychology and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.

11).

Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996; 119(2):254–284.CrossRef

12).

de Jong K. De rol van de behandelaar: de ‘vergeten’ factor in ROM. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie 2012;54:197–201.PubMed

13).

Aoun S, Pennebaker D, Janca A. Outcome measurement in rural mental health care: a field trial of rooming-in models. Aust J Rural Health 2002; 10(6):302–307.CrossRefPubMed

14).

Walter G, Cleary M, Rey JM. Attitudes of mental health personnel towards rating outcome. Journal of Quality in Clinical Practice 1998; 18(2):109–115.PubMed

15).

de Jong K, et al. Understanding the differential impact of outcome monitoring: therapist variables that moderate feedback effects in a randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy Research 2012; 22(4):464–474.CrossRef

16).

Willis A, Deane FP, Coombs T. Improving clinicians’ attitudes toward providing feedback on routine outcome assessments. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2009; 18(3):211–215.CrossRefPubMed

17).

Kelley JM, et al. The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. PloS one 2014; 9(4):e94207.CrossRef

18).

Schoenthaler AM, et al. Patient and physician factors associated with adherence to diabetes medications. Diabetes Educ 2012; 38(3):397–408.CrossRef

19).

Ironson G, Lucette A, McIntosh RC. Doctor-patient relationship: active patient involvement (DPR: API) is related to long survival status and predicts adherence change in HIV. Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research 2015.

20).

Sitzmann T, Yeo G. A meta-analytic investigation of the within- person self-efficacy domain: is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel Psychology 2013; 66(3):531–568.CrossRef

21).

Higgins ET. Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1998;30:1–46.CrossRef

22).

de Jong K, de Goede M. Why do some therapists not deal with outcome monitoring feedback? A feasibility study on the effect of regulatory focus and person–organization fit on attitude and outcome. Psychotherapy Research 2015; 25(6):661–668.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Verschillen tussen behandelaars in het omgaan met routinematige uitkomstmetingen
Auteur: dr. Kim de Jong
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2016
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Evidence Based Practice / Uitgave 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1572-2082
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-8806
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12468-016-0019-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Samenvatting

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2016

Geef patiënten een stem in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en implementatie

ROM, PROM en PREM

PROMs: eerst goed bedenken, alvorens goed te doen

Numbers telling the tale? On the validity of patient experience surveys and the usability of their results

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): a systematic review1)

Meten van uitkomsten van zorg met PROMs