The Effectiveness of a Decision-Support Tool for Adult Consumers With Mental Health Needs and Their Care Managers

Communication satisfaction was measured utilizing a modified version of a 19-item measure of communication patterns between physicians and their clients (Campbell et al., 2007). Thirteen items focusing on the client's satisfaction with communication with their provider and their engagement in treatment were measured on a 7-point scale (strongly agree, agree, agree somewhat, undecided, disagree somewhat, disagree, strongly disagree). Example items included My provider checks to be sure that I understand everything or My provider involves me in decisions as much as I want. Total average scores range from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating better communication satisfaction. Analyses will examine change in Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from pre- to post-intervention.

Time frame: Change in scores on the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.

The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) was utilized as a repeated measure of general therapy outcomes and quality of life changes during the course of therapy. The Outcome Rating Scale includes a visual analog scale (a horizontal line on which the participants marks how well they are doing within the last week from low to high) that records four questions about general well-being, personal well-being, close relationships, and work/school/friend relationships. Physical marks for each of four domains on the visual analog scale are measured by research team members with a ruler and converted to a score from 1 to 100. The four items are then averaged for an overall therapy outcome score. The total averaged ORS score ranges from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. Analyses will examine treatment progress via change in ORS scores from pre- to post-intervention.

Time frame: Change in scores on the Outcome Rating Scale from Baseline to 24 month follow-up

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.

A 6-item modified version of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) 46 was utilized to assess client reports about the degree to which their provider involved them in understanding and making a treatment decision. Examples items included My provider discussed the advantages and disadvantages of options and strategies or My provider helped me understand all the information measured on a 6-point scale (completely disagree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, and completely agree). The total average score ranges from 1 to 6 with higher scores indicating a better outcome of greater shared decision making. Analyses will examine change in Shared Decision Making Questionnaire scores from pre- to post-intervention.

Time frame: Change in scores on the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.

The mental health subscale (MCS-12; Mental Component Summary) of the SF-12 (Health Survey Short Form-12) was utilized in the current study to assess mental aspects of health and well-being48. The measure includes twelve questions asking about overall health, limitations from health conditions, physical health, emotional well-being and daily activities, and feelings over the past four weeks, utilizing variable Likert scale response choice options. The physical health subscale of the SF-12 was utilized as a key client functioning outcome in the current study. The aggregate MCS subscale score of the SF-12 is calculated utilizing norm-based scoring with a weighted sum (Ware, Kosinski, & Keller, 1995). MCS scores in the present study ranged from 9.6 to 72.0, with higher values indicating better physical health.

Time frame: Change in scores on the SF-12 from Baseline to 24 month follow-up Description: The Health Survey Short Form-12 (SF-12) includes 12 items that assess for physical and mental aspects of health and well-being.

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.

The physical health subscale (PCS-12; Physical Component Summary) of the SF-12 (Health Survey Short Form-12) was utilized in the current study to assess physical aspects of health and well-being48. The measure includes twelve questions asking about overall health, limitations from health conditions, physical health, emotional well-being and daily activities, and feelings over the past four weeks, utilizing variable Likert scale response choice options. The aggregate PCS subscale score of the SF-12 is calculated utilizing norm-based scoring with a weighted sum (Ware, Kosinski, & Keller, 1995). PCS scores in the present study ranged from 13.2 to 65.6, with higher values indicating better physical health.

Time frame: Change in scores on the SF-12 from Baseline to 24 month follow-up

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.

The Working Alliance Inventory measures the perception of therapeutic alliance in a clinical dyad during the process of developing a relationship required for effective psychotherapy. The current study utilized the client version of the Working Alliance Inventory included 7 items measured on a 7-point scale (never, rarely, occasionally, sometimes, often, very often, always). Example items included I am confident in my provider's ability to help me and My provider and I trust one another. The Working Alliance Inventory total average score ranges from 1 to 7, with high scores indicating a more positive outcome. Analyses will examine change in patient-reported Working Alliance Inventory scores from pre- to post-intervention.

Time frame: Change in scores on the Working Alliance Inventory from Baseline to 24 month follow-up

Population: Several factors influenced variability in the number of participants analyzed across time points. First, patients may have responded to some items but opted out of others because of questionnaire length or comprehension considerations. Second, some patients were available at baseline but were unavailable at subsequent time points, or vice versa.