Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Little empirical evidence exists to support the effectiveness of hybrid psychiatric care, defined as care delivered through a combination of telephone, videoconferencing, and in-person visits. The authors aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hybrid psychiatric care compared with outpatient waitlist groups, assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
UNASSIGNED: Participants were recruited from an adult psychiatry clinic waitlist on which the most common primary diagnoses were unipolar depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. Patients (N=148) were randomly assigned to one of two waitlist groups that completed PROMs once or monthly before treatment initiation. PROMs were used to assess symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and daily psychological functioning (Brief Adjustment Scale-6 [BASE-6]). Patient measures were summarized descriptively with means, medians, and SDs and then compared by using the Kruskal-Wallis test; associated effect sizes were calculated. PROM scores for patients who received hybrid psychiatric treatment during a different period (N=272) were compared with scores of the waitlist groups.
UNASSIGNED: PROM assessments of patients who engaged in hybrid care indicated significant improvements in symptom severity compared with the waitlist groups, regardless of the number of PROMs completed while patients were on the waitlist. Between the hybrid care and waitlist groups, the effect size for the PHQ-9 score was moderate (d=0.66); effect sizes were small for the GAD-7 (d=0.46) and BASE-6 (d=0.45) scores.
UNASSIGNED: The findings indicate the clinical effectiveness of hybrid care and that PROMs can be used to assess this effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were recruited from an adult psychiatry clinic waitlist on which the most common primary diagnoses were unipolar depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. Patients (N=148) were randomly assigned to one of two waitlist groups that completed PROMs once or monthly before treatment initiation. PROMs were used to assess symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and daily psychological functioning (Brief Adjustment Scale-6 [BASE-6]). Patient measures were summarized descriptively with means, medians, and SDs and then compared by using the Kruskal-Wallis test; associated effect sizes were calculated. PROM scores for patients who received hybrid psychiatric treatment during a different period (N=272) were compared with scores of the waitlist groups.
UNASSIGNED: PROM assessments of patients who engaged in hybrid care indicated significant improvements in symptom severity compared with the waitlist groups, regardless of the number of PROMs completed while patients were on the waitlist. Between the hybrid care and waitlist groups, the effect size for the PHQ-9 score was moderate (d=0.66); effect sizes were small for the GAD-7 (d=0.46) and BASE-6 (d=0.45) scores.
UNASSIGNED: The findings indicate the clinical effectiveness of hybrid care and that PROMs can be used to assess this effectiveness.
摘要：
■几乎没有经验证据支持混合精神病治疗的有效性，定义为通过电话组合提供的护理，视频会议,和亲自访问。作者旨在调查与门诊候诊者组相比，混合精神病护理的有效性。用患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)进行评估。
参与者是从成人精神病学诊所候补名单中招募的，最常见的主要诊断是单相抑郁症，广泛性焦虑障碍,和双相情感障碍。患者（N=148）被随机分配到两个等待名单组之一，在治疗开始前完成一次或每月完成PROM。PROM用于评估抑郁症状（患者健康问卷-9[PHQ-9]），焦虑(广义焦虑症-7[GAD-7])，和日常心理功能(简短调整量表-6[BASE-6])。患者的措施用平均值进行描述性总结，中位数，和SDs，然后使用Kruskal-Wallis检验进行比较；计算相关效应大小。将在不同时期（N=272）接受混合精神病治疗的患者的PROM得分与等待名单组的得分进行比较。
■对参与混合护理的患者进行的胎膜早破评估表明，与等待组相比，症状严重程度有了显著改善，无论患者在等待名单上完成的PROM数量如何.在混合护理和候诊者群体之间，PHQ-9评分的效应大小中等(d=0.66);GAD-7评分(d=0.46)和BASE-6评分(d=0.45)的效应大小较小.
■这些发现表明了混合护理的临床有效性，并且PROM可用于评估这种有效性。
参与者是从成人精神病学诊所候补名单中招募的，最常见的主要诊断是单相抑郁症，广泛性焦虑障碍,和双相情感障碍。患者（N=148）被随机分配到两个等待名单组之一，在治疗开始前完成一次或每月完成PROM。PROM用于评估抑郁症状（患者健康问卷-9[PHQ-9]），焦虑(广义焦虑症-7[GAD-7])，和日常心理功能(简短调整量表-6[BASE-6])。患者的措施用平均值进行描述性总结，中位数，和SDs，然后使用Kruskal-Wallis检验进行比较；计算相关效应大小。将在不同时期（N=272）接受混合精神病治疗的患者的PROM得分与等待名单组的得分进行比较。
■对参与混合护理的患者进行的胎膜早破评估表明，与等待组相比，症状严重程度有了显著改善，无论患者在等待名单上完成的PROM数量如何.在混合护理和候诊者群体之间，PHQ-9评分的效应大小中等(d=0.66);GAD-7评分(d=0.46)和BASE-6评分(d=0.45)的效应大小较小.
■这些发现表明了混合护理的临床有效性，并且PROM可用于评估这种有效性。
