Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care?

Autor: W. Swildens, Arno F. A. van Voorst, Niels Mulder, Bea Tiemens, Annet Nugter, Philippe Delespaul, Jan Theunissen, Jaap van Weeghel, Edwin de Beurs, Matthijs Blankers, Erik van Duijn
Přispěvatelé: RS: MHeNs - R2 - Mental Health, Psychiatrie & Neuropsychologie, VU University medical center, Psychiatry, Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg, Tranzo, Scientific center for care and wellbeing
Rok vydání: 2018
Předmět:
Adult
Male
050103 clinical psychology
medicine.medical_specialty
lcsh:RC435-571
Clinical significance
Treatment outcome
Outcome (game theory)
Routine outcome monitoring
Experimental Psychopathology and Treatment
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
SCALES HONOS
lcsh:Psychiatry
Outcome Assessment
Health Care
Severe mental illness
PSYCHOTHERAPY
MANAGEMENT
medicine
Humans
0501 psychology and cognitive sciences
HoNOS
VALIDITY
RELIABLE CHANGE
Psychiatry
Categorical variable
Reliability (statistics)
Netherlands
CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Mental Disorders
05 social sciences
Middle Aged
SERVICES
Mental illness
medicine.disease
Mental health
Patient Care Management
3. Good health
030227 psychiatry
Psychiatry and Mental health
Mental Health
RELIABILITY
Mental health care
Female
Psychology
Research Article
Zdroj: BMC Psychiatry, 18:225. BioMed Central Ltd
BMC Psychiatry, 18(1):225. BioMed Central
BMC Psychiatry, 18(1):225, 1-10
de Beurs, E, Blankers, M, Delespaul, P, van Duijn, E, Mulder, N, Nugter, A, Swildens, W, Tiemens, B G, Theunissen, J, van Voorst, A F A & van Weeghel, J 2018, ' Treatment results for severe psychiatric illness: Which method is best suited to denote the outcome of mental health care? ', BMC Psychiatry, vol. 18, no. 1, 225 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1798-4
BMC Psychiatry, 18
BMC Psychiatry, 18:225. BioMed Central Ltd.
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2018)
ISSN: 1471-244X
Popis: Contains fulltext : 194109.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Background: The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods: Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results: Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and delta T) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions: For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or delta T is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients. 10 p.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: