CI

At a glance

ClinicalIndex Comparison Record
N/ACompleted· 288 enrolled
Drug / intervention
Scientific Matchbehavioral
Likely dose
Not stated in record
Structured eligibility isn't available for this trial yet — see the full criteria in the Eligibility tab below.

Standardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.

Search/NCT02990000
NCT02990000N/ACompleted

Enhancing Mental Health Care by Scientifically Matching Patients to Providers' Strengths

University of Massachusetts, Amherst·interventional·Posted Dec 12, 2016·Updated Jul 30, 2020

In Brief

A clinical study evaluating Scientific Match for Mental Illness. Completed, enrolled 288 participants across 1 site.

Detailed Summary

Research has shown that mental health care (MHC) providers differ significantly in their ability to help patients. In addition, providers demonstrate different patterns of effectiveness across symptom and functioning domains. For example, some providers are reliably effective in treating numerous patients and problem domains, others are reliably effective in some domains (e.g., depression, substance abuse) yet appear to struggle in others (e.g., anxiety, social functioning), and some are reliably ineffective, or even harmful, across patients and domains. Knowledge of these provider differences is based largely on patient-reported outcomes collected in routine MHC settings. Unfortunately, provider performance information is not systematically used to refer or assign a particular patient to a scientifically based best-matched provider. MHC systems continue to rely on random or purely pragmatic case assignment and referral, which significantly "waters down" the odds of a patient being assigned/referred to a high performing provider in the patient's area(s) of need, and increases the risk of being assigned/referred to a provider who may have a track record of ineffectiveness. This research aims to solve the existing non-patient-centered provider-matching problem. Specifically, the investigators aim to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of a scientifically-based patient-provider match system compared to status quo pragmatic case assignment. The investigators expect in the scientific match group significantly better treatment outcomes (e.g., symptoms, quality of life) and higher patient satisfaction with treatment. The investigators also expect to demonstrate feasibility of implementing a scientific match process in a community MHC system and broad dissemination of the easily replicated scientific match technology in diverse health care settings. The importance of this work for patients cannot be understated. Far too many patients struggle to find the right provider, which unnecessarily prolongs suffering and promotes health care system inefficiency. A scientific match system based on routine outcome data uses patient-generated information to direct this patient to this provider in this setting. In addition, when based on multidimensional assessment, it allows a wide variety of patient-centered outcomes to be represented (e.g., symptom domains, functioning domains, quality of life).

Study Details

Study Typeinterventional
Allocation--
Masking--
Primary Purpose--
ConditionsMental Illness
CountriesUnited States

Timeline

N/ACompletedFinished
2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
First PostedDec 12, 2016
Enrollment StartNov 6, 2017
Primary CompletionSep 23, 2019
Study CompletionMar 15, 2020
TodayJul 2, 2026
Enrollment to primary: 1.9 yearsPosted 9.6 years ago

Interventions

Scientific Matchbehavioral

We have developed an innovative, personalized Match System based on provider track records determined with a multidimensional outcomes tool - the Treatment Outcome Package (TOP). Specifically, patients are assigned to therapists with previously established strengths (i.e., being historically effective) in treating their primary problems (e.g., depression, anxiety).