Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Routine psychiatric follow-up often relies on emotional symptom scales, although patients may also have persistent somatic symptoms and interpersonal or role-functioning difficulties. This narrow focus can obscure residual burden and misdirect follow-up priorities. This study examined whether routinely collected multidomain measures provide nonredundant follow-up signals in psychiatric outpatient routine outcome monitoring within a measurement-based care (MBC)-oriented workflow. Methods This single-center retrospective longitudinal study used routine-monitoring data from a tertiary psychiatric outpatient service in China, operating an MBC-oriented workflow from April 2024 to May 2026. The baseline sample included 667 patients (median age, 16 years; IQR, 14-20); 233 had at least two visits and 154 had at least three visits. Domains were emotional symptoms (POMP-transformed PHQ-9/GAD-7 sum), somatic symptoms (PHQ-15 POMP score), and interpersonal/role-functioning problems (POMP-transformed sum of the OQ-45.2 Interpersonal Relations and Social Role subscales). Stacked mixed-effects models tested monthly change and between-domain slope differences. Results In the primary linear model, emotional, somatic, and interpersonal/role-functioning scores decreased significantly, with monthly changes of −1.13, −0.60, and −0.67 POMP points, respectively. Emotional scores declined more without baseline-score adjustment, but baseline differences, regression to the mean, and scale responsiveness limit recovery-rate comparisons. Quadratic sensitivity analysis suggested nonlinearity. Among individual measures, PHQ-15 had the highest improvement and worsening proportions; 14.6% of evaluable patients had stable/improved emotional status but worsened PHQ-15 status. Conclusions Somatic symptoms and functioning-related problems provided follow-up information not captured by emotional symptom scales alone. Multidomain routine outcome monitoring may help psychiatric outpatient clinicians evaluate clinical improvement more comprehensively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: