Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Assess the Effectiveness of Hybrid Psychiatric Visits

Objective: 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). Method: 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 KruskalWallis 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: The findings indicate the clinical effectiveness of hybrid care and that PROMs can be used to assess this effectiveness.