Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 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, Naomi Gilbert, Janice Connell, Chris Marshall, Elspeth Twigg
  • Journal:
    The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 186 / Issue 3 / March 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 January 2018, pp. 239-246
    Print publication:
    March 2005
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • 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.