使用interRAI-MH量表对住院精神病患者的综合结果测量进行验证。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Frontiers in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-02-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1486734
Howard E Barbaree, Christopher Perlman, Elke Ham, Gregory P Brown, John P Hirdes
{"title":"使用interRAI-MH量表对住院精神病患者的综合结果测量进行验证。","authors":"Howard E Barbaree, Christopher Perlman, Elke Ham, Gregory P Brown, John P Hirdes","doi":"10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1486734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inpatient psychiatry is a critical service in a community-based care system for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). Currently, there are few generally accepted or widely used outcomes to assess the effectiveness of inpatient treatment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Following a Donabedian Model of Health Care Quality, we utilized eight scales from the RAI Mental Health assessment to derive a clinician-scored outcome measure consisting of 4 domains (Psychosis, Depression, Impairment, and Aggression). We combined subscales measuring these domains into a Composite Measure. We used this measure to assess the entire population (N=719) of our large specialized mental health hospital at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of three months in the hospital (or admission to discharge in shorter stays). We evaluated the content validity of the measure by comparing items and scales with a list of putative contributors to hospital admission (symptoms and complications). To evaluate concurrent validity, we compared mean scores among hospital units with varying lengths of stay and clinical complexity (acute versus chronic versus complex chronic). We used ROC analysis to evaluate the CIIMHS's ability to predict discharge from the hospital. To evaluate construct validity, we examined the measure's responsiveness to changes among patients after treatment in the hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found strong evidence for all four kinds of validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The composite measure represents a valid measure of inpatient mental health status and will serve as a valuable measure of the quality of care for inpatient psychiatry.</p>","PeriodicalId":12605,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","volume":"16 ","pages":"1486734"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11839811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a composite outcome measure for inpatient psychiatry using scales from the interRAI-MH.\",\"authors\":\"Howard E Barbaree, Christopher Perlman, Elke Ham, Gregory P Brown, John P Hirdes\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1486734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inpatient psychiatry is a critical service in a community-based care system for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). Currently, there are few generally accepted or widely used outcomes to assess the effectiveness of inpatient treatment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Following a Donabedian Model of Health Care Quality, we utilized eight scales from the RAI Mental Health assessment to derive a clinician-scored outcome measure consisting of 4 domains (Psychosis, Depression, Impairment, and Aggression). We combined subscales measuring these domains into a Composite Measure. We used this measure to assess the entire population (N=719) of our large specialized mental health hospital at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of three months in the hospital (or admission to discharge in shorter stays). We evaluated the content validity of the measure by comparing items and scales with a list of putative contributors to hospital admission (symptoms and complications). To evaluate concurrent validity, we compared mean scores among hospital units with varying lengths of stay and clinical complexity (acute versus chronic versus complex chronic). We used ROC analysis to evaluate the CIIMHS's ability to predict discharge from the hospital. To evaluate construct validity, we examined the measure's responsiveness to changes among patients after treatment in the hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found strong evidence for all four kinds of validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The composite measure represents a valid measure of inpatient mental health status and will serve as a valuable measure of the quality of care for inpatient psychiatry.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1486734\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11839811/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1486734\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1486734","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:住院精神病学是严重精神疾病(SMI)患者社区护理系统中的一项关键服务。目前,很少有普遍接受或广泛使用的结局来评估住院治疗的有效性。方法:根据Donabedian医疗质量模型,我们使用来自RAI心理健康评估的8个量表,得出由4个领域(精神病、抑郁、损害和攻击)组成的临床评分结果测量。我们将测量这些域的子尺度组合成一个复合度量。我们使用这一方法评估了在我们的大型专业精神卫生医院住院三个月的开始(T1)和结束(T2)的全部人群(N=719)(或住院时间较短的入院至出院)。我们通过比较项目和量表与假定的入院因素(症状和并发症)列表来评估测量的内容效度。为了评估并发效度,我们比较了不同住院时间和临床复杂性(急性、慢性和复杂慢性)的医院单位的平均得分。我们使用ROC分析来评估CIIMHS预测出院的能力。为了评估建构效度,我们检验了该措施对医院治疗后患者变化的反应性。结果:我们发现这四种效度都有强有力的证据。结论:该综合措施是住院患者心理健康状况的有效措施,并将作为住院精神病学护理质量的有价值的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Validation of a composite outcome measure for inpatient psychiatry using scales from the interRAI-MH.

Background: Inpatient psychiatry is a critical service in a community-based care system for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). Currently, there are few generally accepted or widely used outcomes to assess the effectiveness of inpatient treatment.

Method: Following a Donabedian Model of Health Care Quality, we utilized eight scales from the RAI Mental Health assessment to derive a clinician-scored outcome measure consisting of 4 domains (Psychosis, Depression, Impairment, and Aggression). We combined subscales measuring these domains into a Composite Measure. We used this measure to assess the entire population (N=719) of our large specialized mental health hospital at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of three months in the hospital (or admission to discharge in shorter stays). We evaluated the content validity of the measure by comparing items and scales with a list of putative contributors to hospital admission (symptoms and complications). To evaluate concurrent validity, we compared mean scores among hospital units with varying lengths of stay and clinical complexity (acute versus chronic versus complex chronic). We used ROC analysis to evaluate the CIIMHS's ability to predict discharge from the hospital. To evaluate construct validity, we examined the measure's responsiveness to changes among patients after treatment in the hospital.

Results: We found strong evidence for all four kinds of validity.

Conclusions: The composite measure represents a valid measure of inpatient mental health status and will serve as a valuable measure of the quality of care for inpatient psychiatry.

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
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers in Psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2813
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychiatry publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research across a wide spectrum of translational, basic and clinical research. Field Chief Editor Stefan Borgwardt at the University of Basel is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal''s mission is to use translational approaches to improve therapeutic options for mental illness and consequently to improve patient treatment outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Associations between fear of medical imaging radiation, risk perception, and patient decisional conflict: evidence from variable-centered and person-centered analyses. Cognitive reappraisal mediated the relationship between childhood emotional neglect and suicidality in depressed adolescents and young adults with NSSI behavior. Development and validation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents. Conversational AI for perinatal mental health: promise, limits, and a human-AI stepped-care framework. Editorial: Psychiatric insights in genetic and chromosomal disorders.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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