Disability assessment in the persons with schizophrenia: Inter-rater agreement and correlation between self-, proxy-, and interviewer-rated versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0

Q4 Psychology Archives of Mental Health Pub Date : 2022-12-29 DOI:10.4103/amh.amh_142_22
F. Paul, Arif Ali
{"title":"Disability assessment in the persons with schizophrenia: Inter-rater agreement and correlation between self-, proxy-, and interviewer-rated versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0","authors":"F. Paul, Arif Ali","doi":"10.4103/amh.amh_142_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Schizophrenia has been described as the most disabling mental disorder, and patients with schizophrenia have been said to be disabled mostly in occupation, sexual relation, self-care, and social relationship domains.\n \n \n \n The present study aimed at assessing disability through self-, proxy-, and interviewer-rated versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 among persons with schizophrenia.\n \n \n \n The study was cross-sectional. Thirty samples of patients with schizophrenia as per the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria were selected using a consecutive sampling technique. Patients above 18 years of age with a total duration of illness of at least more than 2 years were included in the study. The study was conducted at the Outpatient Department of Mental Health Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32, Chandigarh, India.\n \n \n \n The overall inter-rater reliability in schizophrenia was 0.599 (0.395–0.767), indicative of moderate reliability. Domains, namely, getting along with people (0.803) and life activities of household (0.854) had a good reliability, whereas domains such as cognition (0.681), mobility (0.616), self-care (0.636), life activities at school/work (0.664), and participation in the society (0.753) indicated a moderate reliability.\n \n \n \n There was no significant difference among the self, proxy, and interviewer assessments for most items. This study highlighted the fact that service users can also carry out an objective self-assessment of disability, thus upholding the principles of advanced directives as envisaged under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.\n","PeriodicalId":36181,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Mental Health","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/amh.amh_142_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Schizophrenia has been described as the most disabling mental disorder, and patients with schizophrenia have been said to be disabled mostly in occupation, sexual relation, self-care, and social relationship domains. The present study aimed at assessing disability through self-, proxy-, and interviewer-rated versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 among persons with schizophrenia. The study was cross-sectional. Thirty samples of patients with schizophrenia as per the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria were selected using a consecutive sampling technique. Patients above 18 years of age with a total duration of illness of at least more than 2 years were included in the study. The study was conducted at the Outpatient Department of Mental Health Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32, Chandigarh, India. The overall inter-rater reliability in schizophrenia was 0.599 (0.395–0.767), indicative of moderate reliability. Domains, namely, getting along with people (0.803) and life activities of household (0.854) had a good reliability, whereas domains such as cognition (0.681), mobility (0.616), self-care (0.636), life activities at school/work (0.664), and participation in the society (0.753) indicated a moderate reliability. There was no significant difference among the self, proxy, and interviewer assessments for most items. This study highlighted the fact that service users can also carry out an objective self-assessment of disability, thus upholding the principles of advanced directives as envisaged under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神分裂症患者的残疾评估:评分者之间的一致性以及世界卫生组织残疾评估表2.0中自我、代理和面试者评分版本之间的相关性
精神分裂症被描述为最致残的精神障碍,据说精神分裂症患者主要在职业、性关系、自我护理和社会关系领域致残。本研究旨在通过世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS)2.0的自我评估、代理评估和访谈者评估版本,在精神分裂症患者中评估残疾。这项研究是横断面的。根据国际疾病分类-10标准,采用连续抽样技术选择了30名精神分裂症患者样本。研究包括18岁以上、总病程至少超过2年的患者。这项研究在印度昌迪加尔政府医学院和32区医院精神卫生研究所门诊部和精神病学部进行。精神分裂症的总体评分者间信度为0.599(0.395-0.767),表明中度信度。与人相处(0.803)和家庭生活活动(0.854)领域具有良好的可靠性,而认知(0.681)、行动能力(0.616)、自我保健(0.636)、学校/工作生活活动(0.664)和参与社会(0.753)领域具有中等的可靠性。在大多数项目中,自我、代理和面试官的评估没有显著差异。这项研究强调了这样一个事实,即服务使用者也可以对残疾进行客观的自我评估,从而维护2017年《精神卫生保健法》设想的高级指令原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Mental Health
Archives of Mental Health Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of orthorexia nervosa among medical students of South India Orthorexia nervosa among Tunisian medical students: Relationships with self-esteem and stress Effects of adjuvant yoga therapy on craving and perceived stress in alcohol dependence syndrome: A randomized control study Prevalence of test anxiety and their related coping strategies in medical students – A cross-sectional study A study of adverse childhood experiences and psychopathology of imprisoned sexual offenders at a central prison, Hyderabad, Telangana
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1