| Abstract: | The American Psychological Association (APA) contracted with a major insurance company to implement an experimental peer review program between 1982 and 1986. One hundred fifty mental health treatment reports (MHTRs) and 72 corresponding peer reviews were analyzed to determine criteria for review and review outcome. Longer, more intensive treatments were reviewed more often, and shorter treatments were reviewed more positively. MHTRs were less often reviewed if they estimated treatment length, stated appropriate plans and goals, responded to need for medication, and were clearly written. MHTRs were positively reviewed for the same reasons and for mentioning measurable functional impairment and how patients used treatment support and intervention. Relation of findings to past research and APA peer review as a whole are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
