Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T22:14:03.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating the impact of a quality of life assessment with feedback to clinicians in patients with schizophrenia: randomised controlled trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Laurent Boyer*
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, EA 3279 - Public Health, Chronic Diseases and Quality of Life - Research Unit, Marseille
Christophe Lançon
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, EA 3279 - Public Health, Chronic Diseases and Quality of Life - Research Unit and Department of Psychiatry, Sainte-Marguerite University Hospital, Marseille
Karine Baumstarck
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, EA 3279 - Public Health, Chronic Diseases and Quality of Life - Research Unit, Marseille
Nathalie Parola
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Sainte-Marguerite University Hospital, Marseille
Julie Berbis
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, EA 3279 - Public Health, Chronic Diseasesand Quality of Life - Research Unit, Marseille, France
Pascal Auquier
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, EA 3279 - Public Health, Chronic Diseasesand Quality of Life - Research Unit, Marseille, France
*
Laurent Boyer, MD, PhD, EA 3279 - Self-Perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, School of Medicine, La Timone University, 13005 Marseille, France. Email: laurent.boyer@ap-hm.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Quality of life (QoL) measurements are increasingly considered to be an important evaluation of the treatment and care provided to patients with schizophrenia. However, there is little evidence that assessing QoL improves patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Aims

To investigate the impact of a QoL assessment with feedback for clinicians regarding satisfaction and other health outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.

Method

We conducted a 6-month, prospective, randomised and controlled open-label study. Patients withschizophrenia were assigned to one of three groups: standard psychiatric assessment; QoL assessment with standard psychiatric assessment; and QoL feedback with standard psychiatric assessment. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction at 6 months. The local ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Métediterranéee V, France, trial number 07 067) and the French drug and device regulation agency (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, France, trial number A01033-50) approved this study.

Results

We randomly assigned 124 patients into groups. Quality of life feedback significantly affectedpatient satisfaction. Global satisfaction was significantly higher in the QoL feedback group (72.5% of patients had a high level of satisfaction) compared with the standard psychiatric assessment (67.5%) and QoL assessment groups (45.2%). Despite trends towards decreased severity for all clinical outcomes and increased changes to medication in the QoL feedback group at 6-month follow-up, these effects were not significant.

Conclusions

Quality of life feedback positively influences patient satisfaction, which confirms the relevance of measuring QoL in clinical practice. The absence of a significant effect of QoL feedbackon clinical outcomes also suggests that clinicians did not use these data optimally. Our findings suggest a nocebo effect of QoL assessment without feedback that should be considered by researchers and clinicians.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013 

Regulatory agencies such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Authority for Health in France recommend assessing quality of life (QoL) in daily clinical practice in patients with chronic illnesses. In particular, QoL measurements are increasingly considered to be an important way of evaluating the treatments and care provided to patients with schizophrenia.Reference Hofer, Baumgartner, Bodner, Edlinger, Hummer and Kemmler1,Reference Hofer, Baumgartner, Edlinger, Hummer, Kemmler and Rettenbacher2 Using QoL measures may provide clinicians with information regarding the general health statuses of their patients that might otherwise go unrecognised,Reference Nelson, Landgraf, Hays, Wasson and Kirk3,Reference Sprangers and Aaronson4 thereby improving patient satisfaction and health outcomes.Reference Awad and Voruganti5 Thus, clinicians should consider QoL measures in the same way as routine objective measures such as symptomatic evaluation scales, laboratory tests and radiographs to manage the care of patients.Reference Halyard, Frost, Dueck and Sloan6

Despite the acknowledged need to consider QoL issues in clinical practice, its measurement has not been routinely implemented,Reference Greenhalgh, Long and Flynn7 especially in psychiatry.Reference Awad and Voruganti5,Reference Gilbody, House and Sheldon8,Reference Boyer and Auquier9 Practical and attitudinal barriers have been described.Reference Gutteling, Busschbach, de Man and Darlington10 Obtaining QoL data in an efficient real-time manner is difficult because of feasibility issues (i.e. the lack of computer stations, hand-held devicesReference Halyard, Frost, Dueck and Sloan6). Moreover, physicians often overlook QoL assessment as a result of time pressures and clinical constraints as well as a lack of training and interest.Reference Morris, Perez and McNoe11 Therefore, more work must be undertaken to increase the use of QoL instruments in clinical practice. In particular, trials are necessary to build a satisfactory evidence base for the routine clinical use of QoL in psychiatryReference Gilbody, House and Sheldon12,Reference Luckett, Butow and King13 as has already been accomplished in oncology.Reference Takeuchi, Keding, Awad, Hofmann, Campbell and Selby14-Reference Detmar, Muller, Schornagel, Wever and Aaronson17 To our knowledge, and based on an extensive review,Reference Knaup, Koesters, Schoefer, Becker and Puschner18 only one previous randomised study in mental health has reported on the effectiveness of feedback of a standardised outcome assessment including QoL.Reference Slade, McCrone, Kuipers, Leese, Cahill and Parabiaghi19 This found no difference in the mean follow-up QoL between a treatment as usual group and a feedback group. However, the specifics of this study should be mentioned: it was performed on a heterogeneous sample with different mental health illnesses and a short follow-up time. Moreover, it lacked a third control group, including assessment without feedback, that allowed for the isolation of the effect of a single assessment. These limitations prompted us to design a prospective and randomised trial to investigate the impact of QoL assessment with feedback for clinicians regarding satisfaction and other health outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.

Method

Study site and patient eligibility

This study was conducted at the Sainte-Marguerite University Hospital, a specialised psychiatric treatment centre in Marseille, France. The sample consisted of patients who attended the day hospital over a 6-month period. All consecutive attendees who came to the day hospital were approached to participate. The inclusion criteria were: age over 18 years, diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria,20 stable disease status (no need for a hospital admission at inclusion and no major change in patient condition for 2 months prior to inclusion) and native French speaking. The exclusion criteria were: reduced capacity to consent,Reference Jeste, Palmer, Appelbaum, Golshan, Glorioso and Dunn21 an Axis I diagnosis on the DSM-IV other than schizophrenia, acute decompensation of organic disease or mental retardation. The patients were provided with both oral and written information regarding the study prior to obtaining their informed consent. The local ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranée V, France, trial number 07 067) and the French drug and device regulation agency (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, France, trial number A01033-50) approved this study.

Design

The present study was a 6-month, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label and single-centre study. Figure 1 displays a flow chart of the study. A computer-generated, randomised list was created using a permuted block design. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups (random assignment 1:1:1). These were (a) a standard psychiatric assessment group: patients completed the standard psychiatric assessment; (b) a QoL assessment group: patients completed a QoL questionnaire in addition to the standard psychiatric assessment; and (c) a QoL feedback group: feedback regarding the QoL scores was presented to clinicians in addition to the standard psychiatric assessment. The purpose of the QoL assessment group was to isolate the effect of a single assessment (i.e. without feedback) in the clinical use of QoL. Evaluations were performed at three different time points: (a) at randomisation (baseline; T 0) as well as 3 months (T 1) and 6 months (T 2) after randomisation.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participant progress through the phases of the study.

Groups

Standard psychiatric assessment group

In this group each patient received a standard psychiatric assessment performed by a multidisciplinary team that included a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, a nurse and a social worker when appropriate. The standard psychiatric assessment was based on a face-to-face interview, clinical examination and standardised tools (i.e. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS),Reference Kay, Opler and Fiszbein22,Reference Lancon, Reine, Llorca and Auquier23 Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS),Reference Addington, Addington and Maticka-Tyndale24,Reference Lancon, Auquier, Reine, Toumi and Addington25 Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale (ESRS)Reference Chouinard and Margolese26 and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)Reference Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss and Cohen27). Special attention was given to psychotic and depressive symptoms, drug-induced movement disorders and global functioning. This assessment may therefore play a role in the: (a) assessment of the clinical stability of the patient (for example symptomatic and functional remission); (b) detection and prevention of comorbid somatic and psychiatric disorders; (c) initiation or adaptation of specific pharmacological treatments; (d) evaluation of drug-induced disorders; (e) initiation of psychosocial therapy such as cognitive remediation and psychosocial rehabilitation; and (f) addressing of the administrative and financial issues (e.g. health insurance, free state aid).

QoL assessment group

In this group patients received a self-administered QoL questionnaire at each evaluation. Patients completed and returned the questionnaire to a research assistant before the standard psychiatric assessment. The research assistant was independent of the care team, and the QoL scores were not returned to the clinicians. Quality of life was assessed using the S-QoL questionnaire, which is a self-administered questionnaire designed for people with schizophrenia.Reference Auquier, Simeoni, Sapin, Reine, Aghababian and Cramer28 The S-QoL is a multidimensional, 41-item instrument that was developed based on patient views, and assesses eight dimensions: psychological well-being, self-esteem, family relationships, relationships with friends, resilience, physical well-being, autonomy, and sentimental life; and a total score. Dimension and index scores range from 0 (low QoL) to 100 (high QoL).

QoL feedback group

In this group the patient completed and returned the S-QoL questionnaire to the research assistant at each evaluation. The assistant entered the item scores on a computer. A specific algorithm program calculated QoL scores. These scores and the scores of previous evaluations were provided to the care team before the standard psychiatric assessment. In addition, population normsReference Auquier, Simeoni, Sapin, Reine, Aghababian and Cramer28,Reference Boyer, Simeoni, Loundou, D'Amato, Reine and Lancon29 were provided to help clinicians interpret QoL scores. No other advice or guidelines regarding data interpretation and use were provided to clinicians. Patient management was entirely at the discretion of the treating physician.

Evaluation criteria

Primary criterion

The primary evaluation criterion was patient satisfaction, which was assessed using three items relating to different satisfaction domains including: global satisfaction; satisfaction/trust with the staff/care; and satisfaction/trust with the care structure. Because no valid French satisfaction questionnaire for out-patients with schizophrenia is available, ‘ad hoc’ questions were elaborated/created according to the items of the QSH-45, which is a well-validated French in-patient satisfaction questionnaire,Reference Antoniotti, Baumstarck-Barrau, Simeoni, Sapin, Labarere and Gerbaud30 and from our own experience.Reference Boyer, Baumstarck-Barrau, Cano, Zendjidjian, Belzeaux and Limousin31 Three questions were developed by the steering committee project: (a) What is your degree of satisfaction regarding your global care management?; (b) What is your degree of satisfaction regarding the care structure?; and (c) What is your degree of satisfaction regarding the care staff? The primary criterion was global satisfaction at T 2, and the other items were considered as secondary criteria. All items were worded positively and assessed using a four-point Likert scale from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). Satisfaction was assessed at T 1 and T 2.

Secondary criteria

We used PANSS to assess psychotic symptomatology. This scale is composed of three subscales: positive, negative and general psychopathology.Reference Kay, Opler and Fiszbein22,Reference Lancon, Reine, Llorca and Auquier23 Higher scores indicate more severe symptomatologies. We used the CDSS to examine depressive symptomatology; it uses a nine-item scale that evaluates depression independent of extrapyramidal and negative symptoms.Reference Addington, Addington and Maticka-Tyndale24,Reference Lancon, Auquier, Reine, Toumi and Addington25 The CDSS is specifically designed for patients with schizophrenia. Higher scores indicate greater levels of depression. Drug-induced movement disorders (such as Parkinsonism, akathisia, dystonia and dyskinesia) were evaluated using the ESRS.Reference Chouinard and Margolese26 Higher scores indicate more severe disorders. Global functioning was assessed using GAF. The GAF considers psychological, social and occupational functioning, and scores range from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate higher levels of functioning.Reference Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss and Cohen27 Disease severity was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale. The CGI classifies disease severity as mild, moderate or severe.Reference Guy32 Psychotic symptomatology, depression, drug-induced movement disorders, global functioning and severity of disease were assessed at T 0, T 1 and T 2. The psychiatrist indicated any medication changes between T 0 and T 1 as well as between T 1 and T 2.

Additional data

The following parameters were recorded for each participant: gender, age, education level (<12 years/⩾12 years), living arrangement (partner or parents/alone) and employment status (no/yes).

Statistical analyses

Baseline characteristics were compared across the three groups. Frequencies were compared using chi-squared tests, and quantitative variables were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks with a post hoc Dunnett's test. The proportions of patient global satisfaction at T 2 (primary criterion) were compared across the three groups. Group comparisons with regard to the other scores (i.e. the PANSS positive, negative and general psychopathologies as well as CDSS, ESRS and GAF scores) were performed using analysis of variance. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17.0.

Results

Participants

Of the 142 patients who were eligible, 124 participants were enrolled: 42 were enrolled in the standard psychiatric assessment group, 42 in the QoL assessment group and 40 in the QoL feedback group. All but two patients in the standard psychiatric assessment group completed the 3- and 6-month assessments (Fig. 1). The mean age of participants was 41.1 years (s.d. = 11.8); 67.7% were male, and 21.8% had at least 12 years of education. These patients were mildly ill, with a mean total PANSS score of 63.0 (s.d. = 21.6) and positive, negative and general psychopathology subscale scores of 12.9 (s.d. = 5.9), 15.6 (s.d. = 6.3) and 34.6 (s.d. = 11.5) respectively. Patient characteristics did not differ across the three groups at baseline (Table 1). The proportion of highly satisfied patients in the entire sample ranged from 64.2 to 68.3% at 3 months and from 61.5 to 65.6% at 6 months (Table 2).

The effects of QoL assessment and feedback on patient satisfaction

Global satisfaction and satisfaction/trust with the care structure significantly differed across the three groups at the 6-month follow-up (Table 2): a significantly larger percentage of patients reported high levels of satisfaction in the QoL feedback group compared with the standard psychiatric assessment and QoL assessment groups with regard to these domains. In particular, global satisfaction was significantly higher in the QoL feedback group (72.5% patients had high levels of satisfaction) compared with the standard psychiatric assessment (67.5%) and QoL assessment groups (45.2%; P = 0.025). This trend towards higher satisfaction in the QoL feedback group was also found at the 3-month follow-up visit with regard to global satisfaction and satisfaction/trust with the staff/care. A total of 75%, 68.3% and 50.0% of patients in the QoL feedback, standard psychiatric assessment and QoL assessment groups, respectively, reported high levels of global satisfaction (P = 0.049).

Table 1 Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between the three groups at baseline (T0)

Total
(n = 124)
Standard assessment
group
(n = 42)
QoL
assessment group
(n = 42)
QoL feedback
group
(n = 40)
P Footnote a
Sociodemographic
Age, years: mean (s.d.)41.08 (11.77)41.95 (12.05)41.76 (13.14)39.45 (9.92)0.582
Gender, n (%)
    Men84 (67.7)32 (76.2)27 (64.3)25 (62.5)0.349
    Women40 (32.3)10 (23.8)15 (35.7)15 (37.5)
Educational level, n (%)
    <12 years97 (78.2)37 (88.1)29 (69.0)31 (77.5)0.106
    ⩾12 years27 (21.8)5 (11.9)13 (31.0)9 (22.5)
Partnership status, n (%)
    Not single69 (55.6)25 (59.5)22 (52.4)22 (55)0.801
    Single55 (44.4)17 (40.5)20 (47.6)18 (45.0)
Employment status, n (%)
    No107 (86.3)37 (88.1)35 (83.3)35 (87.5)0.788
    Yes17 (13.7)5 (11.9)7 (16.7)5 (12.5)
Clinical
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, mean (s.d.)
    Total63.01 (21.59)64.74 (19.24)64.19 (23.58)59.87 (21.96)0.445
    Positive12.90 (5.92)13.33 (5.72)13.36 (6.81)11.95 (5.09)0.530
    Negative15.56 (6.27)16.33 (6.22)15.50 (6.67)14.79 (5.92)0.395
    General psychopathology34.55 (11.48)35.07 (9.87)35.33 (12.20)33.13 (12.44)0.445
Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, mean (s.d.)4.47 (3.57)4.90 (3.84)4.4 (3.231)4.05 (3.65)0.604
Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale, mean (s.d.)
    Dyskinesia0.09 (0.38)0.19 (0.59)0.05 (0.22)0.03 (0.16)0.183
    Parkinsonism0.12 (0.54)0.21 (0.81)0.10 (0.37)0.05 (0.22)0.495
    Dystonia0.06 (0.23)0.07 (0.26)0.07 (0.26)0.03 (0.16)0.580
    Akathisia0.07 (0.34)0.14 (0.47)0.07 (0.34)0 (0)0.135
Global Assessment of Functioning, mean (s.d.)61.94 (13.18)60.9 (13.67)61.57 (12.36)63.43 (13.66)0.604
Clinical Global Impression of Severity, n (%)0.678
    Mild39 (31.5)12 (28.6)12 (28.6)15 (37.5)
    Moderate68 (54.8)23 (54.8)26 (61.9)19 (47.5)
    Severe17 (13.7)7 (16.7)4 (9.5)6 (15.0)

QoL, quality of life.

a. P-value Kruskall-Wallis test or χ2 test.

Table 2 Comparison of patients' satisfaction between the three groups at 3 and 6 months

n (%)
Total
(n = 124)
Standard
assessment
group
QoL assessment
group
(n = 42)
QoL feedback
group
(n = 40)
P Footnote a
T 1 (3 months)
n123414240
Global satisfaction0.049
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied44 (35.8)13 (31.7)21 (50.0)10 (25.0)
    Very satisfied79 (64.2)28 (68.3)21 (50.0)30 (75.0)
Satisfaction with staff/care0.029
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied41 (33.3)13 (31.7)20 (47.6)8 (20.0)
    Very satisfied82 (66.7)28 (68.3)22 (52.4)32 (80.0)
Satisfaction with the care structure0.153
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied39 (31.7)10 (24.4)18 (42.9)11 (27.5)
    Very satisfied84 (68.3)31 (75.6)24 (57.1)29 (72.5)
T 2 (6 months)
n122404240
Global satisfaction0.025
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied47 (38.5)13 (32.5)23 (54.8)11 (27.5)
    Very satisfied75 (61.5)27 (67.5)19 (45.2)29 (72.5)
Satisfaction with staff/care0.095
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied42 (34.4)14 (35.0)19 (45.2)9 (22.5)
    Very satisfied80 (65.6)26 (65.0)23 (54.8)31 (77.5)
Satisfaction with the care structure0.025
    From unsatisfied to mild satisfied42 (34.4)12 (30.0)21 (50.0)9 (22.5)
    Very satisfied80 (65.6)28 (70.0)21 (50.0)31 (77.5)

QoL, quality of life.

a. Bold values: P<0.05.

Table 3 Comparison of secondary criteria between the three groups at 6 months

Total
(n = 124)
Standard assessment
group
(n = 42)
QoL
assessment group
(n = 42)
QoL feedback
group
(n = 40)
P Footnote a
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, mean (s.d.)
    Total61.20 (20.53)64.64 (20.20)60.55 (20.58)58.28 (20.81)0.227
    Positive12.48 (5.48)13.47 (5.79)12.36 (5.64)11.58 (4.91)0.223
    Negative15.21 (5.94)16.07 (5.94)15.07 (5.88)14.45 (6.03)0.358
    General psychopathology33.51 (10.65)35.10 (10.30)33.12 (10.67)32.25 (11.05)0.312
Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, mean (s.d.)3.63 (2.90)4.19 (3.00)3.5 (2.73)3.18 (2.97)0.229
Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale, mean (s.d.)
    Dyskinesia0.07 (0.34)0.14 (0.52)0.05 (0.22)0.03 (0.16)0.364
    Parkinsonism0.13 (0.54)0.24 (0.82)0.1 (0.37)0.05 (0.22)0.299
    Dystonia0.05 (0.22)0.07 (0.26)0.05 (0.22)0.03 (0.16)0.621
    Akathisia0.08 (0.35)0.14 (0.47)0.07 (0.34)0.03 (0.16)0.364
Global Assessment of Functioning, mean (s.d.)64.57 (12.97)62.36 (13.33)65.12 (12.12)66.33 (13.43)0.273
Clinical Global Impression of Severity, n (%)0.938
    Mild36 (29.0)11 (26.2)12 (28.6)13 (32.5)
    Moderate74 (59.7)25 (59.5)26 (61.9)23 (57.5)
    Severe14 (11.3)6 (14.3)4 (9.5)4 (10.0)
Medication change, n (%)Footnote b0.374
    Yes15 (12.4)5 (11.9)3 (7.5)7 (17.9)
    No106 (87.6)37 (88.1)37 (92.5)32 (82.1)

a. P-value Kruskall-Wallis test or χ2 test.

b. The data for medication changes are based on: total n = 121, Standard assessment group n = 42, QoL assessment group n = 40, QoL feedback group n = 39.

No significant group effect was observed with regard to the different clinical outcomes and changes in medication at the 3-month (data not shown) and 6-month follow-up visits (Table 3). Importantly, there was a trend towards better clinical outcomes (PANSS, CDSS, ESRS, GAF and CGI scores) in the QoL feedback group that was present at 3 months and continued at 6 months. Although not significant, there were more changes made to medication in the QoL feedback group.

Discussion

This randomised study is the first to provide an evidence base for the routine clinical use of QoL assessment and feedback in the management of patients with schizophrenia. Of particular interest is the finding that patient satisfaction levels were higher when clinicians were provided with QoL assessments compared with that of patients whose clinicians did not have this information. This finding is consistent with previous oncology studies reporting that feedback of QoL scores to clinicians improves patient-physician communication.Reference Takeuchi, Keding, Awad, Hofmann, Campbell and Selby14-Reference Detmar, Muller, Schornagel, Wever and Aaronson17 Quality of life measures may help to understand the subjective experiences that are key in treating people with mental disordersReference Yang, Mulvey and Falissard33 and improve patient-clinician communication. Moreover, better communication is related to decreases in the paternalistic view of care as well as increases in interactive approaches with patients and patient decision-making, all of which lead to increased patient satisfaction.Reference Thind and Maly34,Reference Nordon, Rouillon, Barry, Gasquet and Falissard35 We thus hypothesise that QoL assessment with feedback may provide useful information to psychiatrists, which leads to better clinician-patient communicationReference Detmar, Muller, Schornagel, Wever and Aaronson17 and clinician awareness/detection of patients' social and psychological problems,Reference Sprangers and Aaronson4 and that this plays a part in enhancing satisfaction. In addition, our findings provide strong support for integrating QoL assessment and feedback with standard psychiatric assessments. In fact, patient satisfaction predicts future behaviours including adherence with treatment, intent to return for careReference Cleary and McNeil36-Reference Ware and Davies38 and final health outcomes.Reference Chue39 Thus far, obtaining QoL data in an efficient, real-time manner was difficult and rare in clinical practice.Reference Halyard, Frost, Dueck and Sloan6,Reference Gutteling, Busschbach, de Man and Darlington10 Priority should be given to strategies to implement QoL measurements in routine practice, including providing systematic feedback for clinicians. The logistics of obtaining patient QoL data should be the same as those for other clinical indicators.Reference Halyard, Frost, Dueck and Sloan6,Reference Halyard, Frost and Dueck40 Interestingly, recent technologies such as electronic medical records are being implemented in psychiatric settings;Reference Boyer, Baumstarck-Barrau, Belzeaux, Azorin, Chabannes and Dassa41-Reference Boyer, Renaud, Limousin, Henry, Caietta and Fieschi43 these methods may efficiently and automatically collect QoL data.Reference Gutteling, Busschbach, de Man and Darlington10,Reference Wright, Selby, Crawford, Gillibrand, Johnston and Perren44,Reference Velikova, Wright, Smith, Cull, Gould and Forman45

Despite the positive effect that QoL assessment with feedback had on patient satisfaction (i.e. there was a trend towards improved clinical outcomes in the QoL feedback group), there was no significant effect on other health outcomes (PANSS, CDSS, ESRS, GAF and CGI scores) or patient management (changes in medication). The failure to detect significant between-group differences may be because of the small sample size of each group. Alternatively, this failure might be because the disease severity of our sample tended to be mild, which left little room for health status improvements, especially given the relatively short 6-month follow-up period of our study.Reference Hodgson, Bushe and Hunter46 However, these findings are consistent with previous studies that have failed to report any changes in clinical management or health outcomes.Reference Luckett, Butow and King13,Reference Rosenbloom, Victorson, Hahn, Peterman and Cella47 Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that clinicians did not optimally use the QoL feedback. In particular, studies have suggested that clinicians did not feel comfortable interpreting QoL data to improve QoL of patients.Reference Halyard, Frost, Dueck and Sloan6,Reference Halyard, Frost and Dueck40 Strategies for the implementation of QoL measurements should include training sessions aimed at motivating professionals to use QoL data and provide norms, advice and guidelines regarding data interpretation and patient management.Reference Luckett, Butow and King13

One last finding was particularly important in our study. Quality of life assessments without feedback for clinicians was associated with lower patient satisfaction levels compared with patients whose clinicians were provided with QoL feedback and those whose QoL was not assessed. This finding suggests a QoL-assessment nocebo effect (i.e. negative expectations that derived from the clinical encounter and led to poor therapy adherence and health outcomesReference Colloca and Finniss48). Measuring QoL may cause ‘side-effects’ through the exploration of sensitive subjects, thereby generating new expectations from clinicians on the part of the patients.Reference Higginson and Carr49 The absence of the appropriate clinical use of these QoL data (i.e. examine, interpret and act) might negatively affect patient satisfaction (i.e. create a match or mismatch between patient expectations and perceptionsReference Addington, Addington and Maticka-Tyndale24). Thus, this finding has direct implications for both research and clinical practice. Clinicians should consider possible nocebo effects.

Limitations and perspectives

Certain limitations of this study must be considered carefully. First, the sample might not be representative of the entire population of patients with schizophrenia. The participants had paranoid schizophrenia, and were mostly male, middle aged, with mild disease severity and more than 5 years of illness duration. Likewise, the clinicians might not be representative of all of their colleagues in the mental healthcare system because the study was conducted at one university hospital. Therefore, replication is needed in other settings using more diverse and larger groups of patients and clinicians.

Second, clinicians treated patients from all three study groups; this design may have contaminated the results. Therefore, the differences between each group may be underestimated. Future studies should better control for contamination effects, especially by using a randomised cluster design.Reference Luckett, Butow and King13

Third, a longer follow-up period is necessary to better explore the impact of QoL assessment and feedback on clinical outcomes and changes in patient managementReference Luckett, Butow and King13 as well as to confirm the trend towards improved clinical outcomes in the QoL feedback group. Studying the effect of measuring QoL on other relevant outcomes such as social variables (i.e. how patients live, function in society and perform various roles)Reference Priebe50 or recovery (i.e. subjective changes in how people appraise their lives and the extent to which they view themselves as meaningful agents in the world) would be necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.Reference Lysaker, Glynn, Wilkniss and Silverstein51,Reference Roe, Mashiach-Eizenberg and Lysaker52

Fourth, our approach for measuring satisfaction, which was not based on a validated questionnaire but rather on three ad hoc questions, is debatable. At the beginning of the project, no validated questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction in psychiatry was available in French. However, it can be assumed that the choice of the three questions was both reasonable and pragmatic. The three items were: (a) developed from a standardised and well-validated questionnaire of patients' satisfaction with care;Reference Addington, Addington and Maticka-Tyndale24,Reference Barlesi, Barrau, Loundou, Doddoli, Simeoni and Auquier53,Reference Barlesi, Boyer, Doddoli, Antoniotti, Thomas and Auquier54 (b) identified as relevant both from an extensive review of the literature on this topicReference Lancon, Auquier, Reine, Toumi and Addington25 and by the steering committee of this project; and (c) in accordance with current standards in terms of content and response modalities.Reference Boyer, Baumstarck-Barrau, Belzeaux, Azorin, Chabannes and Dassa41,Reference Crocker and Algina55 The measurement bias can be considered to be minimal.

Finally, our findings concern only patients with schizophrenia and might not be generalisable to all mental disorders and chronic diseases. The current findings need to be replicated in future studies that include other chronic diseases.

Implications

Our study indicates that QoL assessment with feedback for clinicians has a positive impact on patient's satisfaction. This finding confirms the relevance of including QoL in clinical practice. However, the absence of a significant effect of QoL assessment with feedback on clinical outcomes suggests that clinicians did not optimally use these data. In addition to feedback, providing advice and guidelines regarding data interpretation and use is necessary to ensure that QoL data have direct implications for clinical practice. Finally, our findings suggest a nocebo effect of QoL assessment without feedback that clinicians should consider.

Funding

This work was supported by institutional grants from the 2005 Programme Hospitalier Recherche Clinique National. The sponsor was the Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Marseille, France; and its role was to control the appropriateness of ethical and legal considerations.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all the patients for their participation in the study. The authors thank the clinicians who identified potential participants for the trial, Dr Marie-Claude Simeoni for her technical assistance, Elodie Guilhot for her contribution for the statistical analyses, Therese Vigne for the data entry.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

References

1 Hofer, A Baumgartner, S Bodner, T Edlinger, M Hummer, M Kemmler, G et al Patient outcomes in schizophrenia II: the impact of cognition. Eur Psychiatry 2005; 20: 395402.Google Scholar
2 Hofer, A Baumgartner, S Edlinger, M Hummer, M Kemmler, G Rettenbacher, MA et al Patient outcomes in schizophrenia I: correlates with sociodemographic variables, psychopathology, and side effects. Eur Psychiatry 2005; 20: 386–94.Google Scholar
3 Nelson, EC Landgraf, JM Hays, RD Wasson, JH Kirk, JW The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians' offices? Med Care 1990; 28: 1111–26.Google Scholar
4 Sprangers, MA Aaronson, NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 743–60.Google Scholar
5 Awad, AG Voruganti, LN. Measuring quality of life in patients with schizophrenia: an update. Pharmacoeconomics 2012; 30: 183–95.Google Scholar
6 Halyard, MY Frost, MH Dueck, A Sloan, JA Is the use of QOL data really any different than other medical testing? Curr Probl Cancer 2006; 30: 261–71.Google Scholar
7 Greenhalgh, J Long, AF Flynn, R The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 833–43.Google Scholar
8 Gilbody, SM House, AO Sheldon, TA Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures. National survey. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 180: 101–3.Google Scholar
9 Boyer, L Auquier, P. The lack of impact of quality-of-life measures in schizophrenia: a shared responsibility? Pharmacoeconomics 2012; 30: 531–2.Google Scholar
10 Gutteling, JJ Busschbach, JJ de Man, RA Darlington, AS Logistic feasibility of health related quality of life measurement in clinical practice: results of a prospective study in a large population of chronic liver patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008; 6: 97.Google Scholar
11 Morris, J Perez, D McNoe, B The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 8591.Google Scholar
12 Gilbody, SM House, AO Sheldon, T Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome – a systematic review. Psychol Med 2002; 32: 1345–56.Google Scholar
13 Luckett, T Butow, PN King, MT Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient-reported data in cancer clinics: future directions. Psychooncology 2009; 18: 1129–38.Google Scholar
14 Takeuchi, EE Keding, A Awad, N Hofmann, U Campbell, LJ Selby, PJ et al Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: a longitudinal analysis of patient-physician communication. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2910–7.Google Scholar
15 Velikova, G Booth, L Smith, AB Brown, PM Lynch, P Brown, JM et al Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 714–24.Google Scholar
16 Taenzer, P Bultz, BD Carlson, LE Speca, M DeGagne, T Olson, K et al Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncology 2000; 9: 203–13.Google Scholar
17 Detmar, SB Muller, MJ Schornagel, JH Wever, LD Aaronson, NK Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 3027–34.Google Scholar
18 Knaup, C Koesters, M Schoefer, D Becker, T Puschner, B Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 195: 1522.Google Scholar
19 Slade, M McCrone, P Kuipers, E Leese, M Cahill, S Parabiaghi, A et al Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services. Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189: 330–6.Google Scholar
20 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn), text revision (DSM-IV-TR). APA, 2000.Google Scholar
21 Jeste, DV Palmer, BW Appelbaum, PS Golshan, S Glorioso, D Dunn, LB et al A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 966–74.Google Scholar
22 Kay, SR Opler, LA Fiszbein, A Significance of positive and negative syndromes in chronic schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 1986; 149: 439–48.Google Scholar
23 Lancon, C Reine, G Llorca, PM Auquier, P Validity and reliability of the French-language version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Acta Psychiatr Scand 1999; 100: 237–43.Google Scholar
24 Addington, D Addington, J Maticka-Tyndale, E. Assessing depression in schizophrenia: the Calgary Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 1993; 162 (suppl 22): 3944.Google Scholar
25 Lancon, C Auquier, P Reine, G Toumi, M Addington, D Evaluation of depression in schizophrenia: psychometric properties of a French version of the Calgary Depression Scale. Psychiatry Res 1999; 89: 123–32.Google Scholar
26 Chouinard, G Margolese, HC. Manual for the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Schizophr Res 2005; 76: 247–65.Google Scholar
27 Endicott, J Spitzer, RL Fleiss, JL Cohen, J The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33: 766–71.Google Scholar
28 Auquier, P Simeoni, MC Sapin, C Reine, G Aghababian, V Cramer, J et al Development and validation of a patient-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in schizophrenia: the S-QoL. Schizophr Res 2003; 63: 137–49.Google Scholar
29 Boyer, L Simeoni, MC Loundou, A D'Amato, T Reine, G Lancon, C et al The development of the S-QoL 18: a shortened quality of life questionnaire for patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2010; 121: 241–50.Google Scholar
30 Antoniotti, S Baumstarck-Barrau, K Simeoni, MC Sapin, C Labarere, J Gerbaud, L et al Validation of a French hospitalized patients' satisfaction questionnaire: the QSH-45. Int J Qual Health Care 2009; 21: 243–52.Google Scholar
31 Boyer, L Baumstarck-Barrau, K Cano, N Zendjidjian, X Belzeaux, R Limousin, S et al Assessment of psychiatric inpatient satisfaction: a systematic review of self-reported instruments. Eur Psychiatry 2009; 24: 540–9.Google Scholar
32 Guy, W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. US Department of Health and Human Services, 1976.Google Scholar
33 Yang, S Mulvey, EP Falissard, B Textual data in psychiatry: reasoning by analogy to quantitative principles. J Nerv Ment Dis 2012; 200: 668–75.Google Scholar
34 Thind, A Maly, R. The surgeon-patient interaction in older women with breast cancer: what are the determinants of a helpful discussion? Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13: 788–93.Google Scholar
35 Nordon, C Rouillon, F Barry, C Gasquet, I Falissard, B Determinants of treatment satisfaction of schizophrenia patients: results from the ESPASS study. Schizophr Res 2012; 139: 211–7.Google Scholar
36 Cleary, PD McNeil, BJ Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry 1988; 25: 2536.Google Scholar
37 Fitzpatrick, R. Surveys of patients satisfaction: I – Important general considerations. BMJ 1991; 302: 887–9.Google Scholar
38 Ware, JE Jr Davies, AR. Behavioral consequences of consumer dissatisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 1983; 6: 291–7.Google Scholar
39 Chue, P. The relationship between patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes in schizophrenia. J Psychopharmacol 2006; 20 (suppl 6): 3856.Google Scholar
40 Halyard, MY Frost, MH Dueck, A Integrating QOL assessments for clinical and research purposes. Curr Probl Cancer 2006; 30: 319–30.Google Scholar
41 Boyer, L Baumstarck-Barrau, K Belzeaux, R Azorin, JM Chabannes, JM Dassa, D et al Validation of a professionals' satisfaction questionnaire with electronic medical records (PSQ-EMR) in psychiatry. Eur Psychiatry 2011; 26: 7884.Google Scholar
42 Boyer, L Renaud, MH Baumstarck-Barrau, K Fieschi, M Samuelian, JC Establishment of an electronic medical record in a psychiatric hospital: evolution of professionals' perceptions. Encephale 2010; 36: 236–41.Google Scholar
43 Boyer, L Renaud, MH Limousin, S Henry, JM Caietta, P Fieschi, M et al Perception and use of an electronic medical record system by professionals of a public psychiatric hospital. Encephale 2009; 35: 454–60.Google Scholar
44 Wright, EP Selby, PJ Crawford, M Gillibrand, A Johnston, C Perren, TJ et al Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 374–82.Google Scholar
45 Velikova, G Wright, EP Smith, AB Cull, A Gould, A Forman, D et al Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 9981007.Google Scholar
46 Hodgson, R Bushe, C Hunter, R Measurement of long-term outcomes in observational and randomised controlled trials. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191 (suppl 50): s7884.Google Scholar
47 Rosenbloom, SK Victorson, DE Hahn, EA Peterman, AH Cella, D Assessment is not enough: a randomized controlled trial of the effects of HRQL assessment on quality of life and satisfaction in oncology clinical practice. Psychooncology 2007; 16: 1069–79.Google Scholar
48 Colloca, L Finniss, D. Nocebo effects, patient-clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes. JAMA 2012; 307: 567–8.Google Scholar
49 Higginson, IJ Carr, AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001; 322: 1297–300.Google Scholar
50 Priebe, S. Social outcomes in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191 (suppl 50): s1520.Google Scholar
51 Lysaker, PH Glynn, SM Wilkniss, SM Silverstein, SM Psychotherapy and recovery from schizophrenia: a review of potential applications and need for future study. Psychol Serv 2010; 7: 7591.Google Scholar
52 Roe, D Mashiach-Eizenberg, M Lysaker, PH The relation between objective and subjective domains of recovery among persons with schizophreniarelated disorders. Schizophr Res 2011; 131: 133–8.Google Scholar
53 Barlesi, F Barrau, K Loundou, A Doddoli, C Simeoni, MC Auquier, P et al Impact of information on quality of life and satisfaction of non-small cell lung cancer patients: a randomized study of standardized versus individualized information before thoracic surgery. J Thorac Oncol 2008; 3: 1146–52.Google Scholar
54 Barlesi, F Boyer, L Doddoli, C Antoniotti, S Thomas, P Auquier, P The place of patient satisfaction in quality assessment of lung cancer thoracic surgery. Chest 2005; 128: 3475–81.Google Scholar
55 Crocker, L Algina, J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participant progress through the phases of the study.

Figure 1

Table 1 Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between the three groups at baseline (T0)

Figure 2

Table 2 Comparison of patients' satisfaction between the three groups at 3 and 6 months

Figure 3

Table 3 Comparison of secondary criteria between the three groups at 6 months

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.