精神症状的潜在类别概况和治疗利用在一个样本的患者共发生的障碍

Luis Villalobos-Gallegos, R. Marín-Navarrete, Calos Roncero, H. González-Cantú
{"title":"精神症状的潜在类别概况和治疗利用在一个样本的患者共发生的障碍","authors":"Luis Villalobos-Gallegos, R. Marín-Navarrete, Calos Roncero, H. González-Cantú","doi":"10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To identify symptom-based subgroups within a sample of patients with co-occurring disorders (CODs) and to analyze intersubgroup differences in mental health services utilization. Methods: Two hundred and fifteen patients with COD from an addiction clinic completed the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised. Subgroups were determined using latent class profile analysis. Services utilization data were collected from electronic records during a 3-year span. Results: The five-class model obtained the best fit (Bayesian information criteria [BIC] = 3,546.95; adjusted BIC = 3,363.14; bootstrapped likelihood ratio test p < 0.0001). Differences between classes were quantitative, and groups were labeled according to severity: mild (26%), mild-moderate (28.8%), moderate (18.6%), moderate-severe (17.2%), and severe (9.3%). A significant time by class interaction was obtained (chi-square [χ2 [15]] = 30.05, p = 0.012); mild (χ2 [1] = 243.90, p < 0.05), mild-moderate (χ2 [1] = 198.03, p < 0.05), and moderate (χ2 [1] = 526.77, p < 0.05) classes displayed significantly higher treatment utilization. Conclusion: The classes with more symptom severity (moderate-severe and severe) displayed lower utilization of services across time when compared to participants belonging to less severe groups. However, as pairwise differences in treatment utilization between classes were not significant between every subgroup, future studies should determine whether subgroup membership predicts other treatment outcomes.","PeriodicalId":9246,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latent class profile of psychiatric symptoms and treatment utilization in a sample of patients with co-occurring disorders\",\"authors\":\"Luis Villalobos-Gallegos, R. Marín-Navarrete, Calos Roncero, H. González-Cantú\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1972\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To identify symptom-based subgroups within a sample of patients with co-occurring disorders (CODs) and to analyze intersubgroup differences in mental health services utilization. Methods: Two hundred and fifteen patients with COD from an addiction clinic completed the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised. Subgroups were determined using latent class profile analysis. Services utilization data were collected from electronic records during a 3-year span. Results: The five-class model obtained the best fit (Bayesian information criteria [BIC] = 3,546.95; adjusted BIC = 3,363.14; bootstrapped likelihood ratio test p < 0.0001). Differences between classes were quantitative, and groups were labeled according to severity: mild (26%), mild-moderate (28.8%), moderate (18.6%), moderate-severe (17.2%), and severe (9.3%). A significant time by class interaction was obtained (chi-square [χ2 [15]] = 30.05, p = 0.012); mild (χ2 [1] = 243.90, p < 0.05), mild-moderate (χ2 [1] = 198.03, p < 0.05), and moderate (χ2 [1] = 526.77, p < 0.05) classes displayed significantly higher treatment utilization. Conclusion: The classes with more symptom severity (moderate-severe and severe) displayed lower utilization of services across time when compared to participants belonging to less severe groups. However, as pairwise differences in treatment utilization between classes were not significant between every subgroup, future studies should determine whether subgroup membership predicts other treatment outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1972\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1972","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

目的:在共发病障碍(CODs)患者样本中确定基于症状的亚组,并分析亚组间在精神卫生服务利用方面的差异。方法:来自某成瘾门诊的215例COD患者填写症状检查表90-修订版。亚组采用潜在类别分析确定。服务利用数据是在3年内从电子记录中收集的。结果:五类模型获得最佳拟合(贝叶斯信息准则[BIC] = 3,546.95;调整BIC = 3363.14;自举似然比检验p < 0.0001)。分类之间的差异是定量的,并根据严重程度进行分组:轻度(26%)、轻度-中度(28.8%)、中度(18.6%)、中度-重度(17.2%)和重度(9.3%)。班级相互作用获得显著时间(χ2 [15]] = 30.05, p = 0.012);轻度(χ2 [1] = 243.90, p < 0.05)、轻度-中度(χ2 [1] = 198.03, p < 0.05)、中度(χ2 [1] = 526.77, p < 0.05)患者的治疗利用率显著高于轻度(χ2 [1] = 243.90, p < 0.05)。结论:与症状较轻组的参与者相比,症状严重程度较高的班级(中重度和重度)的服务利用率较低。然而,由于每个亚组在治疗利用上的两两差异并不显著,未来的研究应确定亚组成员是否能预测其他治疗结果。
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
Latent class profile of psychiatric symptoms and treatment utilization in a sample of patients with co-occurring disorders
Objective: To identify symptom-based subgroups within a sample of patients with co-occurring disorders (CODs) and to analyze intersubgroup differences in mental health services utilization. Methods: Two hundred and fifteen patients with COD from an addiction clinic completed the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised. Subgroups were determined using latent class profile analysis. Services utilization data were collected from electronic records during a 3-year span. Results: The five-class model obtained the best fit (Bayesian information criteria [BIC] = 3,546.95; adjusted BIC = 3,363.14; bootstrapped likelihood ratio test p < 0.0001). Differences between classes were quantitative, and groups were labeled according to severity: mild (26%), mild-moderate (28.8%), moderate (18.6%), moderate-severe (17.2%), and severe (9.3%). A significant time by class interaction was obtained (chi-square [χ2 [15]] = 30.05, p = 0.012); mild (χ2 [1] = 243.90, p < 0.05), mild-moderate (χ2 [1] = 198.03, p < 0.05), and moderate (χ2 [1] = 526.77, p < 0.05) classes displayed significantly higher treatment utilization. Conclusion: The classes with more symptom severity (moderate-severe and severe) displayed lower utilization of services across time when compared to participants belonging to less severe groups. However, as pairwise differences in treatment utilization between classes were not significant between every subgroup, future studies should determine whether subgroup membership predicts other treatment outcomes.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Identifying Depression Early in Adolescence: assessing the performance of a risk score for future onset of depression in an independent Brazilian sample Increased insulin resistance due to long COVID is associated with depressive symptoms and partly predicted by the inflammatory response during acute infection Preventing mental disorders and promoting mental health in the workplace Assessment of the diagnostic performance of two new tools versus routine screening instruments for bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis. The anxiolytic effect of cannabidiol depends on the nature of the trauma when patients with post-traumatic stress disorder recall their trigger event
×
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