Comparative effectiveness research in mental health: An advocate's perspective

Comparative effectiveness research holds great promise for improving the care of people with mental health conditions and disorders related to substance abuse. But inappropriate application of such research can threaten the quality of that care. We examine the controversy surrounding a large real-world trial of schizophrenia treatments and conclude that the initial presentation of results led to overly simplistic policy suggestions that had the potential to harm patients. Patient advocacy groups helped illuminate these consequences and helped stimulate further discussion and analysis. Researchers must engage stakeholders, especially patients, in all aspects of comparative effectiveness research and translate the findings into sound mental health policy and practice.