This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barkham, M.
Right arrow Articles by Twigg, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barkham, M.
Right arrow Articles by Twigg, E.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2005) 186: 239-246
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Suitability and utility of the CORE-OM and CORE-A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings

Michael Barkham, PhD, Naomi Gilbert, BSc, Janice Connell, BSc, Chris Marshall, BSc and Elspeth Twigg, BSc

Psychological Therapies Research Centre, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Correspondence: Professor Michael Barkham, Psychological Therapies Research Centre, 17 Blenheim Terrace, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: m.barkham{at}leeds.ac.uk

Declaration of interest M.B. received funding from the Mental Health Foundation and the Artemis Trust to support the development of the CORE-OM and CORE-A, respectively.

Background There is a need for reliable assessment tools that are suitable for the counselling and the psychological therapy services in primary and secondary care settings.

Aims To test the suitability and utility of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) and CORE-Assessment (CORE-A) assessment tools.

Method Service intake data were analysed from counselling and psychological therapy services in 32 primary care settings and 17 secondary care settings.

Results Completion rates exceeded 98% in both of the settings sampled. Intake severity levels were similar but secondary care patients were more likely to score above the risk cut-off and the severe threshold and to have experienced their problems for a greater duration.

Conclusions The CORE-OM and CORE-A are suitable assessment tools that show small but logical differences between psychological therapy services in primary- and secondary-based care.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
J. CONNELL, M. BARKHAM, W. B. STILES, E. TWIGG, N. SINGLETON, O. EVANS, and J. N. V. MILES
Distribution of CORE-OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS-R
The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2007; 190(1): 69 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychiatr. Bull.Home page
C. Leach, M. Lucock, M. Barkham, R. Noble, L. Clarke, and S. Iveson
Assessing risk and emotional disturbance using the CORE-OM and HoNOS outcome measures at the interface between primary and secondary mental healthcare
Psychiatr. Bull., November 1, 2005; 29(11): 419 - 422.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]