| |
Improving Mental Health Treatments Through Comparative Effectiveness Research
Philip S. Wang,
Christine M. Ulbricht and
Michael Schoenbaum
There is a pressing need for comparative effectiveness research to improve mental health treatments. Although U.S. mental health spending has increased dramatically, mainly because of the rapid adoption of newer psychotropic medications, fewer than a quarter of people with serious mental illnesses receive appropriate care. Because of a general lack of information on the relative effectiveness of different treatments, payers are uncertain about the value of current spending, which in turn may deter new investments to reduce unmet need. We use several recent comparative effectiveness trials to illustrate the potential value of such research for improving practice and policy.

What's this?
Related Articles
Transforming Federal Policy
Health Affairs,
May/June
2009; 28(3):
760
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
- Robert E. Drake, Jonathan S. Skinner, Gary R. Bond, and Howard H. Goldman
Social Security And Mental Illness: Reducing Disability With Supported Employment
Health Affairs,
May/June
2009; 28(3):
761-770.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
[Appendix]
- M. Audrey Burnam, Lisa S. Meredith, Terri Tanielian, and Lisa H. Jaycox
Mental Health Care For Iraq And Afghanistan War Veterans
Health Affairs,
May/June
2009; 28(3):
771-782.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. S. Wang and M. Schoenbaum
Invited Commentary: Assessing Treatment Effects by Using Observational Analyses--Opportunities and Limitations
Am. J. Epidemiol.,
August 1, 2009;
170(3):
286 - 287.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|