利用社区精神健康外展服务使用者的纵向数据,比较世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS)2.0 的 12 项和 36 项版本。

IF 2 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1002/npr2.12426
Mai Iwanaga, Sosei Yamaguchi, Sayaka Sato, Kaori Usui, Kiyoaki Nakanishi, Erisa Nishiuchi, Michiyo Shimodaira, Yugan So, Chiyo Fujii
{"title":"利用社区精神健康外展服务使用者的纵向数据,比较世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS)2.0 的 12 项和 36 项版本。","authors":"Mai Iwanaga, Sosei Yamaguchi, Sayaka Sato, Kaori Usui, Kiyoaki Nakanishi, Erisa Nishiuchi, Michiyo Shimodaira, Yugan So, Chiyo Fujii","doi":"10.1002/npr2.12426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 using longitudinal data from community mental health outreach service users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from Tokorozawa City mental health outreach service users in Japan, total and domain WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 scores were compared. First, we examined score-change differences by domain at the start of outreach services (T1) and 1 year later (T2) for each version. Next, we compared differences between the two versions using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Bland-Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 20 participants, total scores and scores of some domains (i.e., cognition, getting along, life activities, and participation) were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 on both versions (p < 0.010). WHODAS-36 scores were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 for the self-care domain (p = 0.018). Except for self-care, strong correlations were found between scores from the two versions (p < 0.001). In the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis, we found significant differences between the scores of the two versions in the mobility, self-care, and participation domains. There were no significant differences in the distribution or systematic errors between the two versions in scores for the other domains or total score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found strong positive correlations between WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 total scores with no statistical differences between them. For some domains, differences in distribution and systematic errors were found.</p>","PeriodicalId":19137,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11144613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 using longitudinal data from community mental health outreach service users.\",\"authors\":\"Mai Iwanaga, Sosei Yamaguchi, Sayaka Sato, Kaori Usui, Kiyoaki Nakanishi, Erisa Nishiuchi, Michiyo Shimodaira, Yugan So, Chiyo Fujii\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/npr2.12426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 using longitudinal data from community mental health outreach service users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from Tokorozawa City mental health outreach service users in Japan, total and domain WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 scores were compared. First, we examined score-change differences by domain at the start of outreach services (T1) and 1 year later (T2) for each version. Next, we compared differences between the two versions using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Bland-Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 20 participants, total scores and scores of some domains (i.e., cognition, getting along, life activities, and participation) were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 on both versions (p < 0.010). WHODAS-36 scores were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 for the self-care domain (p = 0.018). Except for self-care, strong correlations were found between scores from the two versions (p < 0.001). In the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis, we found significant differences between the scores of the two versions in the mobility, self-care, and participation domains. There were no significant differences in the distribution or systematic errors between the two versions in scores for the other domains or total score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found strong positive correlations between WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 total scores with no statistical differences between them. For some domains, differences in distribution and systematic errors were found.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11144613/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.12426\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.12426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在利用社区精神健康外展服务使用者的纵向数据,比较世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS)2.0的12项和36项版本:利用日本所泽市精神健康外展服务使用者的数据,比较了WHODAS-12和WHODAS-36的总分和领域分。首先,我们研究了外展服务开始时(T1)和一年后(T2)每个版本各领域的得分变化差异。接着,我们使用皮尔逊相关性、Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Bland-Altman分析比较了两个版本之间的差异:在 20 名参与者中,两个版本的总分和某些领域(即认知、相处、生活活动和参与)的得分在 T2 阶段均显著低于 T1 阶段(p 结论:在 T2 阶段,两个版本的总分和某些领域(即认知、相处、生活活动和参与)的得分均显著低于 T1 阶段:我们发现,WHODAS-12 和 WHODAS-36 的总分之间存在很强的正相关性,两者之间没有统计学差异。在某些领域,发现了分布和系统误差的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 using longitudinal data from community mental health outreach service users.

Aim: This study aimed to compare the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 using longitudinal data from community mental health outreach service users.

Methods: Using data from Tokorozawa City mental health outreach service users in Japan, total and domain WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 scores were compared. First, we examined score-change differences by domain at the start of outreach services (T1) and 1 year later (T2) for each version. Next, we compared differences between the two versions using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: Among 20 participants, total scores and scores of some domains (i.e., cognition, getting along, life activities, and participation) were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 on both versions (p < 0.010). WHODAS-36 scores were significantly lower at T2 than at T1 for the self-care domain (p = 0.018). Except for self-care, strong correlations were found between scores from the two versions (p < 0.001). In the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis, we found significant differences between the scores of the two versions in the mobility, self-care, and participation domains. There were no significant differences in the distribution or systematic errors between the two versions in scores for the other domains or total score.

Conclusion: We found strong positive correlations between WHODAS-12 and WHODAS-36 total scores with no statistical differences between them. For some domains, differences in distribution and systematic errors were found.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Fluoxetine does not influence response to continuous theta burst stimulation in human motor cortex. The association between benzodiazepine prescriptions and the risk of laxative use in schizophrenia treatment. Effects of frequently prescribed antiseizure medications on motor vehicle driving performance: Narrative review based on a tiered approach for the assessment of clinically meaningful driving impairment in the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare guideline. Successful treatment with olanzapine and aripiprazole of a schizophrenic patient who developed priapism after switching from risperidone to paliperidone. Investigation of risk factors associated with the development of depressive symptoms in healthy subjects exposed to long-term stress: A prospective study of the Japanese Antarctic research expedition wintering party.
×
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