Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

Brief Reports   |    
Outcomes of a Brief Program, REORDER, to Promote Consumer Recovery and Family Involvement in Care
Lisa B. Dixon, M.D., M.P.H.; Shirley M. Glynn, Ph.D.; Amy N. Cohen, Ph.D.; Amy L. Drapalski, Ph.D.; Deborah Medoff, Ph.D.; Li Juan Fang, M.S.; Wendy Potts, M.S.; Deborah Gioia, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Psychiatric Services 2014; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300074
View Author and Article Information

Dr. Dixon is affiliated with the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and with New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (e-mail: dixonli@nyspi.columbia.edu). Dr. Glynn and Dr. Cohen are with the Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Dr. Drapalski and Ms. Potts are with the MIRECC, VA Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore. Dr. Medoff and Ms. Fang are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Gioia is with the University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore.

Copyright © 2014 by the American Psychiatric Association


Objective  The Recovery-Oriented Decisions for Relatives’ Support (REORDER) intervention is an innovative, manualized protocol utilizing shared decision-making principles with persons who have serious mental illnesses to promote recovery and encourage consideration of family involvement in care. This study compared REORDER to enhanced treatment as usual in a randomized design.

Methods  Participants included 226 veterans with serious mental illness whose relatives had low rates of contact with treatment staff. REORDER involved up to three consumer sessions followed by up to three relative educational sessions if the consumer and relative consented. Individuals were assessed at baseline and six months later.

Results  Eighty-five percent of the 111 randomly assigned REORDER participants attended at least one REORDER consumer session; of those, 59% had at least one family session. REORDER participants had significantly reduced paranoid ideation and increased recovery at follow-up.

Conclusions  Participation in REORDER led to marked increases in family participation and improved consumer outcomes.

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In to Access Full Content
Sign in via Athens (What is this?)
Athens is a service for single sign-on which enables access to all of an institution's subscriptions on- or off-site.
Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now/Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing PsychiatryOnline@psych.org or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Anchor for Jump
Table 1Results on outcome measures for participants in REORDER and in enhanced treatment as usual, baseline and six-month follow-upa
Table Footer Note

a REORDER, Recovery-Oriented Decisions for Relatives’ Support

Table Footer Note

b For chart review outcomes: REORDER baseline and follow-up samples, N=111; enhanced treatment as usual baseline and follow up samples, N=115

Table Footer Note

c Possible total scores range from 0 to 120, with higher scores indicating better recovery. Possible subscale scores, except for spirituality, range from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating better recovery.

Table Footer Note

d For participant interview outcomes: REORDER baseline sample, N=111, and follow-up sample, N=89; enhanced treatment as usual baseline sample, N=115, and follow-up sample, N=92

Table Footer Note

e Possible scores range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating better recovery.

Table Footer Note

f Possible scores on the two subscales range from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.

Table Footer Note

g Possible scores range from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating more severe depression symptoms.



Kwan  BM;  Dimidjian  S;  Rizvi  SL:  Treatment preference, engagement, and clinical improvement in pharmacotherapy versus psychotherapy for depression.  Behaviour Research and Therapy 48:799–804, 2010
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Iacoviello  BM;  McCarthy  KS;  Barrett  MS  et al:  Treatment preferences affect the therapeutic alliance: implications for randomized controlled trials.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75:194–198, 2007
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
 Consumers in Health Care: Creating Decision-Support Tools That Work .  Oakland,  California HealthCare Foundation, 2006. Available at www.chcf.org/publications/2006/06/consumers-in-health-care-creating-decisionsupport-tools-that-work
Dixon  LB;  Dickerson  F;  Bellack  AS  et al:  The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychosocial treatment recommendations and summary statements.  Schizophrenia Bulletin 36:48–70, 2010
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Cohen  AN;  Glynn  SM;  Murray-Swank  AB  et al:  The Family Forum: directions for the implementation of family psychoeducation for severe mental illness.  Psychiatric Services 59:40–48, 2008
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Dausch  BM;  Cohen  AN;  Glynn  S  et al:  An intervention framework for family involvement in the care of persons with psychiatric illness: further guidance from Family Forum II.  American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 15:52–55, 2012
Kiesler  DJ;  Auerbach  SM:  Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions.  Patient Education and Counseling 61:319–341, 2006
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Taylor  K:  Paternalism, participation and partnership: the evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation.  Patient Education and Counseling 74:150–155, 2009
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Glynn  SM;  Dixon  LB;  Cohen  A  et al:  The Family Member Provider Outreach program: an innovative way to engage family members in mental health care.  Psychiatric Services 59:934, 2008
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Bullock  WA;  Young  SL: The Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM); in Measuring the Promise of Recovery: A Compendium of Recovery and Recovery-Related Instruments, Updated and Revised. Edited by Campbell-Orde T, Garrett E, Leff S. Boston, Human Services Research Institute, Evaluation Center, 2005
Derogatis  LR;  Melisaratos  N:  The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report.  Psychological Medicine 13:595–605, 1983
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Beck  AT;  Steer  RA;  Ball  R  et al:  Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients.  Journal of Personality Assessment 67:588–597, 1996
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
Cohen  AN;  Drapalski  AL;  Glynn  SM  et al:  Preferences for family involvement in care among consumers with serious mental illness.  Psychiatric Services 64:257–263, 2013
[CrossRef] | [PubMed]
References Container

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Related Content
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 50.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 50.  >
DSM-5™ Clinical Cases > Chapter 2.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 11.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 11.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News