Mental DisordersNCT02761733
The Effectiveness of a Decision-Support Tool for Adult Consumers With Mental Health Needs and Their Care Managers
A study testing Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) in people with Mental Disorders, run by Felton Institute.
Trial summary
The primary goal of the proposed study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the mPOWR (Moving Patient-centered Outcomes through Wellness and Recovery) in diverse urban and rural community mental health settings. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Mental Disorders
- What is being tested?
- Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 240 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2013to Oct 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Men and women over the age of 18 who are receiving mental health services.
Who cannot join
- Temporary Exclusion:
- Disruptive, aggressive, or severely disorganized behaviors;
- Visibly intoxicated or under the influence of illicit drugs.
- General Exclusion:
- Moderate to severe cognitive impairment;
- Developmental disability that precludes comprehension;
- Language issues: Intervention is only offered in English and Chinese;
- Patient services structured for provision of mPOWR implementation (e.g., not in and out of inpatient or crisis stabilization services).
About this study
Official title: Researching the Effectiveness of a Decision-Support Tool for Adult Consumers With Mental Health Needs and Their Care Managers
The primary goal of the proposed study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the mPOWR (Moving Patient-centered Outcomes through Wellness and Recovery) in diverse urban and rural community mental health settings. The study compares patient participation and outcomes using the mPOWR system to a usual care control condition. Four community mental health agencies participate in the research: two in San Francisco (urban) and two in N.M. (rural). One site in each setting serves as the mPOWR implementation site and the other serves as the control site. Service sites were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care conditions. A quasi experimental design was used; only eligible participants were enrolled in the study (e.g., exclusion criteria of moderate to severe cognitive impairment, patient services structured for provision of mPOWR implementation, etc.). The study design will employ repeated quantitative measures to assess change in outcomes within and across conditions over time. Qualitative methods in the form of focus group interviews will also be used to round out the information obtained about patient and provider expectations and experiences. Primary outcomes of interest include: Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12; physical and mental health aspects of health and well-being); Outcome Rating Scale (ORS; general well-being, personal well-being, close relationships, and work/school/friend relationships); Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (congruence of patient's and provider's participation in therapeutic decision making and patient's understanding of treatment and treatment options); Working Alliance Inventory (perception of therapeutic alliance); and Satisfaction Questionnaire (communication patterns between physicians and their patients).
Read the detailed description
Research on the impact of decision-support tools for providers and patients has not included frontline care managers within community mental health settings. In particular, the care management field lacks effective models for integrating results-based and patient-centered care into routine practice with diverse adults with complex mental health and social service needs. For over five years, Family Service Agency of San Francisco (FSA) developed and piloted a mental health decision-support tool entitled the Assessment Diagnostic Evaluation and Planning Tool (ADEPT) for use by patients and front-line providers. The ADEPT was developed by a team of researchers, frontline providers, and FSA patients to collect data and track patient progress over time. Yet, its strong focus on diagnostic screening and excessive length limited its relevance to patients in guiding service decisions. Over the past two years, a team of FSA patients and care managers revised the tool, eliminating its diagnostic component and retaining two measures of quality of life and community living skills that were reviewed and/or adapted by patients to reflect meaningful outcomes in the delivery of services. Decision aids and a communications toolkit were also developed to support the use of shared-decision making (SDM) processes in the provision of services. Together, these instruments and tools make up the Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) system. mPOWR ensures that the patient-provider relationship remains focused on patient identified outcomes and use of SDM throughout care. The primary goal of the study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the mPOWR in diverse urban and rural community mental health settings.
FSA has partnered with senior faculty from the University of New Mexico to serve as independent researchers for this study. The study involves four community mental health agencies: two in San Francisco (urban) and two in N.M. (rural). One (randomly chosen) site in each setting serves as the mPOWR implementation site and the other serves as the control site. The study population initially enrolled included 240 (60/site X 4 sites) diverse adults with chronic mental health conditions. The specific aims for this study are: (1) To improve patient and provider participation in shared-decision making and engagement in mental health treatment, to improve [patient] personal Quality of Life, and to improve [patient] access to community/social services; (2) To increase patient understanding of their treatment and of treatment options; to increase their personal treatment progress; (3) To increase patient functionality and sense of perceived support for their therapeutic outcomes.
Primary outcomes of interest include: Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12; physical and mental health aspects of health and well-being); Outcome Rating Scale (ORS; general well-being, personal well-being, close relationships, and work/school/friend relationships); Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (congruence of patient's and provider's participation in therapeutic decision making and patient's understanding of treatment and treatment options); Working Alliance Inventory (perception of therapeutic alliance); and Satisfaction Questionnaire (communication patterns between physicians and their patients). Qualitative methods in the form of focus group interviews will also be used to round out the information obtained about patient and provider expectations and experiences. Data will be collected in a time series design.
- Conditions
- Mental Disorders
- Being tested
- Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR)
- Keywords
- Shared Decision Making, Case Management, Decision Aid
- Medical subject headings
- Mental Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR)Behavioural
An mPOWR intervention and toolkit that consists of strategies, prompts, and decision aids designed to foster patient involvement in treatment. The mPOWR intervention includes a questionnaire that assesses quality of life and consumer functioning for use in the development of consumer-centered goals and outcomes within the mPOWR intervention.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| mPOWR System | Experimental | Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) consists of an assessment questionnaire and decision support tools which map onto 6 life domains which are measured by the questionnaire. Receives: Behavioral: Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) |
| Control | No intervention | Treatment as usual |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), Physical Symptoms Subscale
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.
Measured: Change in scores on the SF-12 from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) Mental Symptoms
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.
Measured: 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.
Outcome Rating Scale (ORS)
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.
Measured: Change in scores on the Outcome Rating Scale from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
Shared Decision Making Questionnaire
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.
Measured: Change in scores on the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
Working Alliance Inventory
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.
Measured: Change in scores on the Working Alliance Inventory from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
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.
Measured: Change in scores on the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 May 2016 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2013
- Primary completionOct 2016
- Study completionOct 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Mental DisordersStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Felton Institute
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, University of New Mexico
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Joyce Chu, PhD, Principal investigator, Felton Institute
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02761733
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CE-12-11-4309
- Status last verified
- Mar 2017
- First submitted
- 20 Jan 2016
- Last updated
- 26 Apr 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Larson CO, Schlundt D, Patel K, Beard K, Hargreaves M. Validity of the SF-12 for use in a low-income African American community-based research initiative (REACH 2010). Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Apr;5(2):A44. Epub 2008 Mar 15.
PubMed 18341779Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
PubMed 8628042Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998 Feb;7(2):155-66. doi: 10.1023/a:1008809610703.
PubMed 9523497Miller, S., et al., The Outcome Rating Scale: A Preliminary Study of the Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Brief Visual Analog Measure. J Brief Therapy, 2003. 2(2): p. 91-100.
Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
PubMed 19879711Hanson, W., K. Curry, and D. Bandalos, Reliability Generalization of Working Alliance Inventory Scale Scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2002. 62(4): p. 659-673.
Horvath, A. and L. Greenberg, Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. J Counseling Psychology, 1989. 36: p. 223-233.
Campbell C, Lockyer J, Laidlaw T, Macleod H. Assessment of a matched-pair instrument to examine doctor-patient communication skills in practising doctors. Med Educ. 2007 Feb;41(2):123-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02657.x.
PubMed 17269944
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Apr 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Researching the Effectiveness of a Decision-Support Tool for Adult Consumers With Mental Health Needs and Their Care Managers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02761733
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CE-12-11-4309
- Conditions
- Mental Disorders
- Keywords
- Shared Decision Making, Case Management, Decision Aid
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Felton InstituteUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, University of New Mexico
- Study start
- Sep 2013
- Primary completion
- Oct 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 May 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 26 Apr 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary goal of the proposed study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the mPOWR (Moving Patient-centered Outcomes through Wellness and Recovery) in diverse urban and rural community mental health settings. The study compares patient participation and outcomes using the mPOWR system to a usual care control condition. Four community mental health agencies participate in the research: two in San Francisco (urban) and two in N.M. (rural). One site in each setting serves as the mPOWR implementation site and the other serves as the control site. Service sites were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care conditions. A quasi experimental design was used; only eligible participants were enrolled in the study (e.g., exclusion criteria of moderate to severe cognitive impairment, patient services structured for provision of mPOWR implementation, etc.). The study design will employ repeated quantitative measures to assess change in outcomes within and across conditions over time. Qualitative methods in the form of focus group interviews will also be used to round out the information obtained about patient and provider expectations and experiences. Primary outcomes of interest include: Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12; physical and mental health aspects of health and well-being); Outcome Rating Scale (ORS; general well-being, personal well-being, close relationships, and work/school/friend relationships); Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (congruence of patient's and provider's participation in therapeutic decision making and patient's understanding of treatment and treatment options); Working Alliance Inventory (perception of therapeutic alliance); and Satisfaction Questionnaire (communication patterns between physicians and their patients).
Detailed description
Research on the impact of decision-support tools for providers and patients has not included frontline care managers within community mental health settings. In particular, the care management field lacks effective models for integrating results-based and patient-centered care into routine practice with diverse adults with complex mental health and social service needs. For over five years, Family Service Agency of San Francisco (FSA) developed and piloted a mental health decision-support tool entitled the Assessment Diagnostic Evaluation and Planning Tool (ADEPT) for use by patients and front-line providers. The ADEPT was developed by a team of researchers, frontline providers, and FSA patients to collect data and track patient progress over time. Yet, its strong focus on diagnostic screening and excessive length limited its relevance to patients in guiding service decisions. Over the past two years, a team of FSA patients and care managers revised the tool, eliminating its diagnostic component and retaining two measures of quality of life and community living skills that were reviewed and/or adapted by patients to reflect meaningful outcomes in the delivery of services. Decision aids and a communications toolkit were also developed to support the use of shared-decision making (SDM) processes in the provision of services. Together, these instruments and tools make up the Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) system. mPOWR ensures that the patient-provider relationship remains focused on patient identified outcomes and use of SDM throughout care. The primary goal of the study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the mPOWR in diverse urban and rural community mental health settings.
FSA has partnered with senior faculty from the University of New Mexico to serve as independent researchers for this study. The study involves four community mental health agencies: two in San Francisco (urban) and two in N.M. (rural). One (randomly chosen) site in each setting serves as the mPOWR implementation site and the other serves as the control site. The study population initially enrolled included 240 (60/site X 4 sites) diverse adults with chronic mental health conditions. The specific aims for this study are: (1) To improve patient and provider participation in shared-decision making and engagement in mental health treatment, to improve [patient] personal Quality of Life, and to improve [patient] access to community/social services; (2) To increase patient understanding of their treatment and of treatment options; to increase their personal treatment progress; (3) To increase patient functionality and sense of perceived support for their therapeutic outcomes.
Primary outcomes of interest include: Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12; physical and mental health aspects of health and well-being); Outcome Rating Scale (ORS; general well-being, personal well-being, close relationships, and work/school/friend relationships); Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (congruence of patient's and provider's participation in therapeutic decision making and patient's understanding of treatment and treatment options); Working Alliance Inventory (perception of therapeutic alliance); and Satisfaction Questionnaire (communication patterns between physicians and their patients). Qualitative methods in the form of focus group interviews will also be used to round out the information obtained about patient and provider expectations and experiences. Data will be collected in a time series design.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| mPOWR System | Experimental | Behavioral: Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR)Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) consists of an assessment questionnaire and decision support tools which map onto 6 life domains which are measured by the questionnaire. |
| Control | No intervention | –Treatment as usual |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Men and women over the age of 18 who are receiving mental health services.
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Disruptive, aggressive, or severely disorganized behaviors;
- Visibly intoxicated or under the influence of illicit drugs.
- Moderate to severe cognitive impairment;
- Developmental disability that precludes comprehension;
- Language issues: Intervention is only offered in English and Chinese;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR)An mPOWR intervention and toolkit that consists of strategies, prompts, and decision aids designed to foster patient involvement in treatment. The mPOWR intervention includes a questionnaire that assesses quality of life and consumer functioning for use in the development of consumer-centered goals and outcomes within the mPOWR intervention. | Behavioural | mPOWR System |
Primary outcome
Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), Physical Symptoms Subscale
Time frame: Change in scores on the SF-12 from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
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.
Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) Mental Symptoms
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.
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.
Outcome Rating Scale (ORS)
Time frame: Change in scores on the Outcome Rating Scale from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
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.
Shared Decision Making Questionnaire
Time frame: Change in scores on the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
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.
Working Alliance Inventory
Time frame: Change in scores on the Working Alliance Inventory from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
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.
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
Time frame: Change in scores on the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire from Baseline to 24 month follow-up
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.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Apr 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 18341779Larson CO, Schlundt D, Patel K, Beard K, Hargreaves M. Validity of the SF-12 for use in a low-income African American community-based research initiative (REACH 2010). Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Apr;5(2):A44. Epub 2008 Mar 15.
- Background: PubMed 8628042Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
- Background: PubMed 9523497Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998 Feb;7(2):155-66. doi: 10.1023/a:1008809610703.
- BackgroundMiller, S., et al., The Outcome Rating Scale: A Preliminary Study of the Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Brief Visual Analog Measure. J Brief Therapy, 2003. 2(2): p. 91-100.
- Background: PubMed 19879711Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
- BackgroundHanson, W., K. Curry, and D. Bandalos, Reliability Generalization of Working Alliance Inventory Scale Scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2002. 62(4): p. 659-673.
- BackgroundHorvath, A. and L. Greenberg, Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. J Counseling Psychology, 1989. 36: p. 223-233.
- Background: PubMed 17269944Campbell C, Lockyer J, Laidlaw T, Macleod H. Assessment of a matched-pair instrument to examine doctor-patient communication skills in practising doctors. Med Educ. 2007 Feb;41(2):123-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02657.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Mental Disorders
Recruiting
Development of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging Techniques for Imaging Metabolites in Human Brain and Muscle
Brain Mapping, Healthy Volunteer
Active, not recruiting
Intervention to Address Disparate Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Latinx and African Newcomers
Mental Health Issue, Mental Health Disorder
Recruiting
Trial Phase: Syndemic Adapted Medly Uganda
Mental Health
Active, not recruiting
Designing and Evaluating a Classroom-Based Mental Health Programme for Adolescents.
Mental Health Promotion
Active, not recruiting
Bringing Health Home
Mental Disorders, Severe
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Joyce Chu, PhD principal investigator
Felton Institute
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Moving Patient Outcomes toward Wellness and Recovery (mPOWR) in people with Mental Disorders, run by Felton Institute.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Apr 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 26 Apr 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), Physical Symptoms Subscale (time frame: Change in scores on the SF-12 from Baseline to 24 month follow-up). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02761733, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Apr 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.