International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2022, 34(S1), ii70–ii97 doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab001 Advance Access Publication Date: 6 January 2021 Supplement Article Supplement Article Patient-reported outcome measures in mental health clinical research: a descriptive review in comparison with clinician-rated outcome measures LONE BAANDRUP 1,2 , JESPER ØSTRUP RASMUSSEN 3 , JAN MAINZ 4,5,6 , POUL VIDEBECH 7 and SOLVEJG KRISTENSEN 4 1 Department of Emergency Psychiatry, Mental Health Center Copenhagen, Tuborgvej 245, Copenhagen NV 2400, Denmark, 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3 Mental Health Center Ballerup, Ballerup 2750, Denmark, 4 DACS, Danish Center for Health Services Research, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 5 Clinical Institute, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 6 Department for Community Mental Health, Uni- versity of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, and 7 Center for Neuropsychiatric Depression Research, Mental Health Centre Glostrup, Glostrup 2600, Denmark Address reprint requests to: Lone Baandrup, Department of Emergency Psychiatry, Mental Health Center Copenhagen, Tuborgvej 235, Copenhagen, NV 2400, Denmark. Tel: +45 91165903; E-mail: lone.baandrup@regionh.dk Received 23 May 2020; Editorial Decision 29 December 2020; Revised 11 November 2020; Accepted 6 January 2021 Abstract Purpose: To review how patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in mental health clinical research complement traditional clinician-rated outcome (CRO) measures. Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus. Study selection: Latest update of the literature search was conducted in August 2019, using a spec- ifed set of search terms to identify controlled and uncontrolled studies (published since 1996) of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in adults (≥18 years) in hospital-based mental health care. Data extraction: Two authors extracted data independently using a pre-designed extraction form. Results of data synthesis: Among the 2962 publications identifed, 257 were assessed by full text reading. A total of 24 studies reported in 26 publications were included in this descriptive review. We identifed subjective and objective outcome measures, classifed these according to the pharmacopsychometric triangle and compared them qualitatively in terms of incremental infor- mation added to the clinical study question. The data reviewed here from primarily depression and schizophrenia intervention studies show that results from PRO measures and CRO measures generally point in the same direction. There was a relative lack of PRO measures on functioning and medication side effects compared with PRO measures on symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Conclusion: PROs and CROs supplement each other and at most times support identical study con- clusions. Future studies would beneft from a more systematic approach toward use of PROs and a clearer rationale of how to weigh and report the results in comparison with CROs. Key words: routine outcome measures, performance measures, clinical intervention, patient involvement, patient-centered care © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com ii70 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/34/Supplement_1/ii70/6066323 by guest on 01 August 2023