Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Suitability and utility of the CORE–OM and CORE–A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings

  • Michael Barkham (a1), Naomi Gilbert (a1), Janice Connell (a1), Chris Marshall (a1) and Elspeth Twigg (a1)...

Abstract

Background

There is a need for reliable assessment tools that are suitable for the counselling and the psychological therapy services in primary and secondary care settings.

Aims

To test the suitability and utility of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE–OM) and CORE–Assessment (CORE–A) assessment tools.

Method

Service intake data were analysed from counselling and psychological therapy services in 32 primary care settings and 17 secondary care settings.

Results

Completion rates exceeded 98% in both of the settings sampled. Intake severity levels were similar but secondary care patients were more likely to score above the risk cut-off and the severe threshold and to have experienced their problems for a greater duration.

Conclusions

The CORE–OM and CORE–A are suitable assessment tools that show small but logical differences between psychological therapy services in primary- and secondary-based care.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Suitability and utility of the CORE–OM and CORE–A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Suitability and utility of the CORE–OM and CORE–A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Suitability and utility of the CORE–OM and CORE–A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Professor Michael Barkham, Psychological Therapies Research Centre, 17 Blenheim Terrace, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: m.barkham@leeds.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

Declaration of interest

M.B. received funding from the Mental Health Foundation and the Artemis Trust to support the development of the CORE–OM and CORE–A, respectively.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Barkham, M., Evans, C., Margison, F., et al (1998) The rationale for developing and implementing core outcome batteries for routine use in service settings and psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Mental Health, 7, 3547.
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., et al (2001) Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE–OM: toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 69, 184196.
Cape, J. & Parham, A. (2001) Rated casemix of general practitioner referrals to practice counsellors and clinical psychologists: a retrospective survey of a year's caseload. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 74, 237246.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edn). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.
Department of Health (2001) The Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide. London: Department of Health.
Elliott, R., Stiles, W. B. & Shapiro, D. A. (1993) Are some psychotherapies more equivalent than others? In Handbook of Effective Psychotherapy (ed. Giles, T. R.), pp. 455479. New York: Plenum Press.
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., et al (2002) Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 5160.
Gardner, M. J. & Altman, D. G. (1986) Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ, 292, 746750.
Gunnell, D. & Harbord, R. (2003) Suicidal thoughts. In Better or Worse: A Longitudinal Study of the Mental Health of Adults, pp. 4565, London: TSO.
Jacobson, N. & Truax, P. (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 1219.
Mellor-Clark, J. & Barkham, M. (2000) Quality evaluation: methods, measures and meaning. In Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy (eds Feltham, C. & Horton, J.), pp. 225270. London: Sage Publications.
Mellor-Clark, J., Barkham, M., Connell, J., et al (1999) Practice-based evidence and standardized evaluation: informing the design of the CORE system. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 2, 357374.
Slade, M., Cahill, S., Kelsey, W., et al (2001) Threshold 3: the feasibility of the Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG) for routine assessment of the severity of mental health problems. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36, 516521.
Whewell, P. & Bonanno, D. (2000) The Care Programme Approach and risk assessment of borderline personality disorder: clinical validation of the CORE risk sub-scale. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 381384.
Wilson, E. B. (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 209212.
Wing, J.K., Beevor, A., Curtis, R. H., et al (1998) Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): research and development. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 1118.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Suitability and utility of the CORE–OM and CORE–A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings

  • Michael Barkham (a1), Naomi Gilbert (a1), Janice Connell (a1), Chris Marshall (a1) and Elspeth Twigg (a1)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *