[由于收入能力完全减少而产生的养老金:精神病学报告是否符合社会医学评估的质量标准?]

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1932-3079
Lisa Schöwe, Christoph Kröger, Axel Kobelt-Poenicke
{"title":"[由于收入能力完全减少而产生的养老金:精神病学报告是否符合社会医学评估的质量标准?]","authors":"Lisa Schöwe,&nbsp;Christoph Kröger,&nbsp;Axel Kobelt-Poenicke","doi":"10.1055/a-1932-3079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The quality of socio-medical expert opinions, which are prepared for the German Pension Insurance (GPI) in the context of applications for reduced earning capacity pension due to mental disorder, has hardly been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent expert medical reports on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comply with the guideline of the GPI on socio-medical reports for mental and behavioral disorders.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>To examine the quality of expert opinions, 52 socio-medical expert opinions in which a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assigned and a performance capacity of less than three hours was determined were analyzed. The quality of the expert opinions was assessed both quantitatively by calculating quality points and qualitatively by analyzing the content. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for two raters to examine rater agreement based on a subsample (n=11).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyzed appraisals scored an average of 36.1 (SD=7.4) out of a possible 92 quality points (range 22/56). In most of the expert opinions, the descriptions of participation limitations, epicrisis, and sociomedical conclusion were unsatisfactory.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inadequate presentation of the functional and participation limitations in the expert opinions may not do justice to the actual facts of the case, so that the evidence of a health disorder with the corresponding participation limitations cannot be provided beyond doubt. Accordingly, measures to improve the quality of expert opinions such as training and regular quality reviews are necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":54504,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Pension Due to Full Reduction in Earning Capacity: Do Psychiatric Reports Meet the Quality Criteria for Socio-Medical Assessment?]\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Schöwe,&nbsp;Christoph Kröger,&nbsp;Axel Kobelt-Poenicke\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1932-3079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The quality of socio-medical expert opinions, which are prepared for the German Pension Insurance (GPI) in the context of applications for reduced earning capacity pension due to mental disorder, has hardly been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent expert medical reports on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comply with the guideline of the GPI on socio-medical reports for mental and behavioral disorders.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>To examine the quality of expert opinions, 52 socio-medical expert opinions in which a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assigned and a performance capacity of less than three hours was determined were analyzed. The quality of the expert opinions was assessed both quantitatively by calculating quality points and qualitatively by analyzing the content. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for two raters to examine rater agreement based on a subsample (n=11).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyzed appraisals scored an average of 36.1 (SD=7.4) out of a possible 92 quality points (range 22/56). In most of the expert opinions, the descriptions of participation limitations, epicrisis, and sociomedical conclusion were unsatisfactory.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inadequate presentation of the functional and participation limitations in the expert opinions may not do justice to the actual facts of the case, so that the evidence of a health disorder with the corresponding participation limitations cannot be provided beyond doubt. Accordingly, measures to improve the quality of expert opinions such as training and regular quality reviews are necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1932-3079\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1932-3079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:迄今为止,为德国养老保险(GPI)在因精神障碍而申请减少赚取能力养老金的情况下准备的社会医学专家意见的质量几乎没有进行过调查。本研究的目的是调查关于创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的专家医学报告在多大程度上符合GPI关于精神和行为障碍社会医学报告的指南。方法:为了检查专家意见的质量,分析了52个社会医学专家意见,其中诊断为创伤后应激障碍(PTSD),并确定了少于三个小时的表现能力。通过计算质量点对专家意见的质量进行定量评价,通过分析专家意见的内容对专家意见的质量进行定性评价。基于子样本(n=11)计算两个评分者的一致性百分比和Cohen’s kappa来检查评分者的一致性。结果:在可能的92个质量点(范围22/56)中,分析的评估平均得分为36.1 (SD=7.4)。在大多数专家意见中,对参与限制、危机和社会医学结论的描述令人不满意。结论:专家意见中对功能和参与限制的陈述不充分,可能无法公正地对待案件的实际事实,因此无法毫无疑问地提供具有相应参与限制的健康障碍证据。因此,有必要采取培训和定期质量审查等措施来提高专家意见的质量。
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
[Pension Due to Full Reduction in Earning Capacity: Do Psychiatric Reports Meet the Quality Criteria for Socio-Medical Assessment?]

Objective: The quality of socio-medical expert opinions, which are prepared for the German Pension Insurance (GPI) in the context of applications for reduced earning capacity pension due to mental disorder, has hardly been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent expert medical reports on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comply with the guideline of the GPI on socio-medical reports for mental and behavioral disorders.

Methodology: To examine the quality of expert opinions, 52 socio-medical expert opinions in which a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assigned and a performance capacity of less than three hours was determined were analyzed. The quality of the expert opinions was assessed both quantitatively by calculating quality points and qualitatively by analyzing the content. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for two raters to examine rater agreement based on a subsample (n=11).

Results: The analyzed appraisals scored an average of 36.1 (SD=7.4) out of a possible 92 quality points (range 22/56). In most of the expert opinions, the descriptions of participation limitations, epicrisis, and sociomedical conclusion were unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The inadequate presentation of the functional and participation limitations in the expert opinions may not do justice to the actual facts of the case, so that the evidence of a health disorder with the corresponding participation limitations cannot be provided beyond doubt. Accordingly, measures to improve the quality of expert opinions such as training and regular quality reviews are necessary.

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
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift Die Rehabilitation richtet sich an Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in Einrichtungen, Forschungsinstitutionen und Trägern der Rehabilitation. Sie berichtet über die medizinischen, gesetzlichen, politischen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen und Rahmenbedingungen der Rehabilitation und über internationale Entwicklungen auf diesem Gebiet. Schwerpunkte sind dabei Beiträge zu Rehabilitationspraxis (medizinische, berufliche und soziale Rehabilitation, Qualitätsmanagement, neue Konzepte und Versorgungsmodelle zur Anwendung der ICF, Bewegungstherapie etc.), Rehabilitationsforschung (praxisrelevante Ergebnisse, Methoden und Assessments, Leitlinienentwicklung, sozialmedizinische Fragen), Public Health, Sozialmedizin Gesundheits-System-Forschung sowie die daraus resultierenden Probleme.
期刊最新文献
[Vocational Rehabilitation in Times of the Covid-19 Pandemic]. [What is the Impact of Early Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Management on Outcome after Polytrauma?] [Measuring Disability in Participation Survey and Social Reporting]. [Return to Work after Cancer - a Systematic Review of Predictors in Germany]. [Validated German PROMs for People with Major Amputation of the Lower Extremity - A Narrative Review Based on the Final Report of the LEAD and COMPASS Initiative of the ISPO].
×
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