Perspectives of people with schizophrenia on clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Utako Sawada, Asami Matsunaga, Ayano Taneda, Natsu Sasaki, Sosei Yamaguchi
{"title":"Perspectives of people with schizophrenia on clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study.","authors":"Utako Sawada, Asami Matsunaga, Ayano Taneda, Natsu Sasaki, Sosei Yamaguchi","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06292-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the past half-century, numerous scales have been designed to quantify outcomes in people with severe mental health disorders. However, little is known about the views of people diagnosed with schizophrenia on individual outcome scales, particularly outside of European countries.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study to examine the perspectives of people with schizophrenia on multiple scales in Japan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven participants took part in focus group interviews. Five had extensive experience as mental health peer supporters; the others had no such experience. To address potential power imbalances and facilitate dynamic discourse, participants were intentionally divided into two groups on the basis of peer support experience, and two simultaneous two-hour focus group interviews were conducted in separate rooms. The participants reviewed 12 clinical and patient-reported outcome measures and discussed their views on each measure. Interview data for each group were combined prior to analysis and qualitatively analyzed by four researchers using a thematic analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of the participants was 42.7 years (SD = 8.3), and six were male. On average, the participants had been living with schizophrenia for 22.2 years (SD = 11.1). After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified, each containing two to seven subthemes: 1) validity and format of the scale construct, 2) factors affecting the accuracy of responses, 3) plain language and familiar words in Japanese culture, 4) psychological impact on the respondents, and 5) containing important items in everyday life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The participants provided both favorable and unfavorable feedback on each scale. When implementing research utilizing clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures, researchers should exercise caution considering the potential emotional impact on respondents. Furthermore, scale development should take into account the cultural background and psychological burden experienced by the respondents.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"861"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06292-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Over the past half-century, numerous scales have been designed to quantify outcomes in people with severe mental health disorders. However, little is known about the views of people diagnosed with schizophrenia on individual outcome scales, particularly outside of European countries.

Aim: We conducted a qualitative study to examine the perspectives of people with schizophrenia on multiple scales in Japan.

Methods: Eleven participants took part in focus group interviews. Five had extensive experience as mental health peer supporters; the others had no such experience. To address potential power imbalances and facilitate dynamic discourse, participants were intentionally divided into two groups on the basis of peer support experience, and two simultaneous two-hour focus group interviews were conducted in separate rooms. The participants reviewed 12 clinical and patient-reported outcome measures and discussed their views on each measure. Interview data for each group were combined prior to analysis and qualitatively analyzed by four researchers using a thematic analysis approach.

Results: The average age of the participants was 42.7 years (SD = 8.3), and six were male. On average, the participants had been living with schizophrenia for 22.2 years (SD = 11.1). After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified, each containing two to seven subthemes: 1) validity and format of the scale construct, 2) factors affecting the accuracy of responses, 3) plain language and familiar words in Japanese culture, 4) psychological impact on the respondents, and 5) containing important items in everyday life.

Conclusion: The participants provided both favorable and unfavorable feedback on each scale. When implementing research utilizing clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures, researchers should exercise caution considering the potential emotional impact on respondents. Furthermore, scale development should take into account the cultural background and psychological burden experienced by the respondents.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信