scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Michael Barkham

Bio: Michael Barkham is an academic researcher from University of Sheffield. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mental health & Psychological intervention. The author has an hindex of 73, co-authored 294 publications receiving 19540 citations. Previous affiliations of Michael Barkham include Miami University & Economic and Social Research Council.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The CORE–OM is a reliable and valid instrument with good sensitivity to change, acceptable in a wide range of practice settings, and convergent validity with seven other instruments.
Abstract: Background An acceptable, standardised outcome measure to assess efficacy and effectiveness is needed across multiple disciplines offering psychological therapies. Aims To present psychometric data on reliability, validity and sensitivity to change for the CORE—OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation — Outcome Measure). Method A 34-item self-report instrument was-developed, with domains of subjective well-being, symptoms, function and risk. Analysis includes internal reliability, test—retest reliability, socio-demographic differences, exploratory principal-component analysis, correlations with other instruments, differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and assessment of change within a clinical group. Results Internal and test—retest reliability were good (0.75-0.95), as was convergent validity with seven other instruments, with large differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and good sensitivity to change. Conclusions The CORE—OM is a reliable and valid instrument with good sensitivity to change. It is acceptable in a wide range of practice settings.

778 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the Clinical Outcome Measure (COM) is proposed as a core measure for monitoring therapists' work, motivated by different theories and working in different settings, to find a single measure -a 'core' for monitoring their work.
Abstract: Can different therapists, motivated by different theories and working in different settings, find a single measure - a 'core' - for monitoring their work? This paper introduces the Clinical Outcome...

531 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There was no overall advantage to 16- session treatment over 8-session treatment, however, those presenting with relatively severe depression improved substantially more after 16 than after 8 sessions, and there was evidence of some advantage to CB on the Beck Depression Inventory.
Abstract: A total of 117 depressed clients, stratified for severity, completed 8 or 16 sessions of manualized treatment, either cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CB) or psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy (PI). Each of 5 clinician-investigators treated clients in all 4 treatment conditions. On most measures, CB and PI were equally effective, irrespective of the severity of depression or the duration of treatment. However, there was evidence of some advantage to CB on the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). There was no evidence that CB's effects were more rapid than those of PI, nor did the effects of each treatment method vary according to the severity of depression. There was no overall advantage to 16-session treatment over 8-session treatment. However, those presenting with relatively severe depression improved substantially more after 16 than after 8 sessions.

451 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results suggest that the CORE-OM is a valid and reliable measure for multiple settings and is acceptable to users and clinicians as well as policy makers.
Abstract: To complement the evidence-based practice paradigm, the authors argued for a core outcome measure to provide practice-based evidence for the psychological therapies Utility requires instruments that are acceptable scientifically, as well as to service users, and a coordinated implementation of the measure at a national level The development of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is summarized Data are presented across 39 secondary-care services (n = 2,710) and within an intensively evaluated single service (n = 1,455) Results suggest that the CORE-OM is a valid and reliable measure for multiple settings and is acceptable to users and clinicians as well as policy makers Baseline data levels of patient presenting problem severity, including risk, are reported in addition to outcome benchmarks that use the concept of reliable and clinically significant change Basic quality improvement in outcomes for a single service is considered

447 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Reading a book as this basics of qualitative research grounded theory procedures and techniques and other references can enrich your life quality.

13,415 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a review examines the role of patient predictors of outcome in cognitive therapy of depression and finds that high pretreatment severity scores are associated with poorer response to cognitive therapy, as are high chronicity, younger age at onset, an increased number of previous episodes, and marital status.

5,556 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Mar 2014-BMJ
TL;DR: The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
Abstract: Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

5,237 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

4,303 citations