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: |