Outcome measure | Instrument | Description | Reference (instrument) |
---|---|---|---|
Effectiveness outcomes | |||
 30-day and annual readmission rates and annual emergency services utilization | Administrative data | The number and proportion of patients readmitted into acute care units within 30-days and 365 days of last discharge. | - |
 Psychological wellbeing | The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 (CORE-10) | A 10- item instrument developed to monitor clinically significant change in outpatients. The CORE-10 covers four domains: Well-being, problems/symptoms, functioning, and risk, and sums up in two total scores: the mean of all items, and the mean of all non-risk items. These measures will be assessed at baseline, six and 12 months for each participant. | Skre et al. 2013 [52] |
 Quality of life | The 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) | The EQ-5D-5L comprises of 2 sections: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). The descriptive system consists of five components: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each component has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The EQ VAS can be used as a quantitative measure of health outcome ranging from worst imaginable health to best imaginable health, reflecting the patient’s own judgement. These measures will be assessed at baseline, six and 12 months for each participant. | Herdman et al. 2011 [53] |
 Patient’s recovery | Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) | The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) is a 20-item measure developed based on a process model of recovery. The RAS evaluates various aspects of recovery with a special focus on hope and self-determination. These measures will be assessed at baseline, six and 12 months for each participant | Giffort et al. 2000 [54] |
 Patient’s resilience | The Brief Resilience Scale | The Brief Resilience Scale evaluates the perceived ability to bounce back or recover from stress. These measures will be assessed at baseline, six and 12 months for each participant. | Smith et al. 2008 [55] |
 Client satisfaction/Experience surveys. | Instrument developed and pilot tested, and published by the authors | Evaluates clients’ satisfaction and experiences with supportive text messaging programs. These measures will be assessed at 12 months for each participant. | Shalaby et al. 2022 [56] |
Implementation outcomes | |||
 Reach | Administrative data | The proportion of target population who receive the daily supportive/reminder text message and peer support interventions across Alberta. | - |
 Acceptability | Instrument developed and pilot tested, and published by the authors | Evaluates clients’ satisfaction and experiences with supportive text messaging programs. These measures will be assessed at 12 months for each participant. | Shalaby et al. 2022 [56] |
 Appropriateness of the messages and peer support services | Sociocultural sensitivity, Gender sensitivity, Age sensitivity. | Qualitative in-depth interviews. | - |
 Fidelity | Administrative data | Percentage of scheduled peer support follow-up visits completed as planned. Adherence to the peer support guidelines These measures will be assessed at baseline, six and 12 months. | - |
 Incremental cost-utility of implementing both interventions | Administrative data | The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is the ratio between the difference in costs and the difference in benefits of two interventions. These measures will be assessed at baseline and 12 months. |  |