Study: Comparative effectiveness research might improve mental health treatment

When it comes to mental healthcare, it seems that there are huge variations in the treatments Americans receive, according to a growing number of new studies summarized in the latest issue of Health Affairs.

According to Philip Wang, acting deputy director of the National Institute of Mental Health, one-quarter of Americans suffering from mental health problems receive treatments that aren't consistent with evidence-based guidelines. Patients may be getting inappropriate treatments simply because doctors don't have the evidence they need to make informed decisions, suggests Wang, who was chief author of one of the studies.

Given this gap, it makes sense that a significant piece of the $1.1 billion in stimulus money allocated for comparative effectiveness research ought to be earmarked for mental health research, the summary article suggests.

To learn more about these studies:
- read this Modern Healthcare piece

Related Articles:
Women, minority groups concerned over 'comparative effectiveness'
Legislators, policy experts push for comparative effectiveness research
Comparative effectiveness institute may lead to more pragmatic studies
Feds study care effectiveness, practice patterns

Suggested Articles

The profit margins and management of Community Health Group raise questions about oversight of managed care insurers.

Financial experts are warning practices about the pitfalls of promoting medical credit cards to their patients.

A proposed rule issued by HHS on Tuesday would expand short-term coverage, a move Seema Verma said will have "virtually no impact" on ACA premiums.