↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of clinician-rated instruments to assess adults’ levels of functioning in specialised public sector mental health services

Overview of attention for article published in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of clinician-rated instruments to assess adults’ levels of functioning in specialised public sector mental health services
Published in
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, January 2017
DOI 10.1177/0004867416688098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M Burgess, Meredith G Harris, Tim Coombs, Jane E Pirkis

Abstract

Functioning is one of the key domains emphasised in the routine assessment of outcomes that has been occurring in specialised public sector mental health services across Australia since 2002, via the National Outcomes and Casemix Collection. For adult consumers (aged 18-64), the 16-item Life Skills Profile (LSP-16) has been the instrument of choice to measure functioning. However, review of the National Outcomes and Casemix Collection protocol has highlighted some limitations to the current approach to measuring functioning. A systematic review was conducted to identify, against a set of pre-determined criteria, the most suitable existing clinician-rated instruments for the routine measurement of functioning for adult consumers. We used two existing reviews of functioning measures as our starting point and conducted a search of MEDLINE and PsycINFO to identify articles relating to additional clinician-rated instruments. We evaluated identified instruments using a hierarchical, criterion-based approach. The criteria were as follows: (1) is brief (<50 items) and simple to score, (2) is not made redundant by more recent instruments, (3) relevant version has been scientifically scrutinised, (4) considers functioning in a contemporary way and (5) demonstrates sound psychometric properties. We identified 20 relevant instruments, 5 of which met our criteria: the LSP-16, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, the Illness Management and Recovery Scale-Clinician Version, the Multnomah Community Ability Scale and the Personal and Social Performance Scale. Further work is required to determine which, if any, of these instruments satisfy further criteria relating to their appropriateness for assessing functioning within relevant service contexts, acceptability to clinicians and consumers, and feasibility in routine practice. This should involve seeking stakeholders' opinions (e.g. about the specific domains of functioning covered by each instrument and the language used in individual items) and testing completion rates in busy service settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,136,219
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
#1,887
of 2,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,549
of 420,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
#24
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.