SynthesisBMJ mental health2025
Quantifying care, qualifying experiences: a systematic review of measurement-based care in psychiatry from patient and provider perspectives.
Synthesis in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Cardiovascular Risks of Anticholinergic Versus Non-Anticholinergic Antidepressants: A Target Trial Emulation With Negative Control Correction.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Implementing measurement-based care in virtual mental health services for rural veterans: provider insights from a pre-implementation evaluation.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Differential Effects of Art Therapy and Dance/Movement Therapy on Emotional and Somatic Regulation in Early Psychopathology: First-Episode Psychosis and Eating Disorders.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- From symptoms to function: the PAD-S decision matrix for severe mental illness-a transdiagnostic clinical translation framework for ICD-11/ICF-aligned psychotherapy documentation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement based care (MBC) is a patient-centered approach that is gaining popularity in healthcare systems, particularly in mental health settings. However, attitudes towards MBC vary among mental health clinicians and patients, leading to variable implementation.
objectiveThis systematic review synthesises clinician and patient perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, APA PsychINFO and CINAHL databases from inception to January 2024. After screening 1644 titles and abstracts, 48 full papers were reviewed, and 24 studies were ultimately included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and key patterns were extracted using thematic analysis.
findingsThe review reflects opinions of 901 patients and 2831 clinicians across various settings. Patients valued MBC for enhancing communication, self-awareness and reducing stigma. However, they expressed concerns about the adequacy of measures in reflecting their clinical state and uncertainty about how responses influence treatment decisions. Clinicians appreciated MBC for improving patient involvement, tracking treatment response and enhancing communication efficiency. Concerns included inadequate capture of clinical complexity, potential reporting biases, time constraints, insufficient training and concerns with respect to data usage and privacy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While patients and clinicians recognise significant benefits, including enhanced communication, improved insight and more structured clinical decision-making, they also identify important limitations. These include concerns about the adequacy of scales to capture complex clinical presentations, potential impacts on the therapeutic alliance and increased administrative burden. Moving forward, successful integration of MBC into routine care will require addressing these challenges through improved clinician training, clear guidelines for interpretation, greater transparency with respect to how data will be used and more seamless integration with existing clinical workflows. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD420250651562.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.