The Adaption of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory for Costing Mental Health Services in Brazil.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Aglae Sousa, Andrea A Cardoso, Monia Kayo, Guilherme Gregorio, Jair de Jesus Mari, Denise Razzouk
{"title":"The Adaption of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory for Costing Mental Health Services in Brazil.","authors":"Aglae Sousa,&nbsp;Andrea A Cardoso,&nbsp;Monia Kayo,&nbsp;Guilherme Gregorio,&nbsp;Jair de Jesus Mari,&nbsp;Denise Razzouk","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a scarcity of tested instruments for measuring mental health services and costs. The Client Sociodemographic Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI) is the most used tool in economic evaluation in mental health in Europe; it was translated into five languages, and it was mainly used to evaluate deinstitutionalisation process in mental health system reform.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>To translate and adapt to the Brazilian healthcare system, and to test its inter-rater reliability, validity and its feasibility in a deinstitutionalized sample of psychiatric hospital living in residential facilities.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The translation and adaptation of CSSRI to Brazilian context was done by a focus group with eight experts on public mental health services, covering all the available Brazilian healthcare services. Decisions on the extent of conceptual overlap between British and Brazilian version were discussed until reaching expert consensus. The inter-rater reliability and applicability of this version, called ``Inventário Sociodemográfico de Uso e Custos de Serviços - ISDUCS'', was tested in a sample of 30 subjects with moderate to severe mental disorders living in residential facilities. Because the lack of medical record or another source, ISDUCS's validity was assessed using Kappa coefficient agreement to compare between resident`s answers and their professional carers`answers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The same structure of the original instrument was kept, with an additional list of items for costing consumable services. The main modifications were on items related to education, occupational status and on detailed descriptions of public health services. The agreement between two mental health raters was good to excellent for the majority of items, with Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.6 to 1.0. Because 43% of the sample was unable to answer questions about regularly taken medications and consultations with health professionals, an exploratory analysis was done to identify potentially related variables. Greater severity of psychiatric symptoms and lower independent living skills were related to the inability to answer these questions. Agreement between residents and carers was good to excellent for socio and demographic variables, living situation and occupational status, income, visits to a psychologist, occupational therapists and social workers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ISDUCS is the first tool for economic evaluation including mental health services translated and adapted to Brazilian context. Despite the widespread use of CRSSI among people with schizophrenia in Europe, this study found that greater severity of symptoms led to high rate of missing responses. Inter-rater reliability was excellent as a whole. Small sample size didn't allow generalisation of results of this preliminary testing.</p><p><strong>Implications for health provision and use: </strong>ISDUCS may be suitable for people with mental illness but requires additional sources of information such as carers and medical records. ISDUCS could be used for monitoring health service use in general practice.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong>Despite some limitations, this instrument was used to measure mental health service costs in three Brazilian studies, generating data for supporting local mental health policies, for boosting empirical research in the country and for supporting modelling studies.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>It should be tested further in other health settings and samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"21 3","pages":"131-142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a scarcity of tested instruments for measuring mental health services and costs. The Client Sociodemographic Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI) is the most used tool in economic evaluation in mental health in Europe; it was translated into five languages, and it was mainly used to evaluate deinstitutionalisation process in mental health system reform.

Aims of the study: To translate and adapt to the Brazilian healthcare system, and to test its inter-rater reliability, validity and its feasibility in a deinstitutionalized sample of psychiatric hospital living in residential facilities.

Method: The translation and adaptation of CSSRI to Brazilian context was done by a focus group with eight experts on public mental health services, covering all the available Brazilian healthcare services. Decisions on the extent of conceptual overlap between British and Brazilian version were discussed until reaching expert consensus. The inter-rater reliability and applicability of this version, called ``Inventário Sociodemográfico de Uso e Custos de Serviços - ISDUCS'', was tested in a sample of 30 subjects with moderate to severe mental disorders living in residential facilities. Because the lack of medical record or another source, ISDUCS's validity was assessed using Kappa coefficient agreement to compare between resident`s answers and their professional carers`answers.

Results: The same structure of the original instrument was kept, with an additional list of items for costing consumable services. The main modifications were on items related to education, occupational status and on detailed descriptions of public health services. The agreement between two mental health raters was good to excellent for the majority of items, with Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.6 to 1.0. Because 43% of the sample was unable to answer questions about regularly taken medications and consultations with health professionals, an exploratory analysis was done to identify potentially related variables. Greater severity of psychiatric symptoms and lower independent living skills were related to the inability to answer these questions. Agreement between residents and carers was good to excellent for socio and demographic variables, living situation and occupational status, income, visits to a psychologist, occupational therapists and social workers.

Conclusion: ISDUCS is the first tool for economic evaluation including mental health services translated and adapted to Brazilian context. Despite the widespread use of CRSSI among people with schizophrenia in Europe, this study found that greater severity of symptoms led to high rate of missing responses. Inter-rater reliability was excellent as a whole. Small sample size didn't allow generalisation of results of this preliminary testing.

Implications for health provision and use: ISDUCS may be suitable for people with mental illness but requires additional sources of information such as carers and medical records. ISDUCS could be used for monitoring health service use in general practice.

Implications for health policies: Despite some limitations, this instrument was used to measure mental health service costs in three Brazilian studies, generating data for supporting local mental health policies, for boosting empirical research in the country and for supporting modelling studies.

Implications for further research: It should be tested further in other health settings and samples.

适应客户社会人口和服务收据清单的成本计算精神卫生服务在巴西。
背景:用于衡量精神卫生服务和费用的测试工具缺乏。客户社会人口服务收据清单(CSSRI)是欧洲最常用的心理健康经济评估工具;它被翻译成五种语言,主要用于评估精神卫生系统改革中的去机构化进程。本研究的目的:翻译和适应巴西的医疗保健系统,并测试其内部信度,效度和可行性在一个去机构化的样本精神病院居住在住宅设施。方法:由8名公共精神卫生服务专家组成的焦点小组对CSSRI进行翻译和改编,以适应巴西的情况,涵盖巴西所有可用的卫生保健服务。讨论了英国版本和巴西版本之间概念重叠程度的决定,直至达成专家共识。该版本被称为“Inventário Sociodemográfico de Uso e Custos de serviros - ISDUCS”,在30名居住在住宅设施中患有中度至重度精神障碍的受试者样本中进行了测试。由于缺乏医疗记录或其他来源,ISDUCS的效度评估使用Kappa系数一致性来比较居民的答案和他们的专业护理人员的答案。结果:保留原仪器结构,增加消耗性服务成本项目清单。主要修改的是与教育、职业状况和公共卫生服务的详细说明有关的项目。两名心理健康评价者在大多数项目上的一致性为良好至优秀,Kappa系数在0.6 ~ 1.0之间。由于43%的样本无法回答有关定期服用药物和咨询卫生专业人员的问题,因此进行了探索性分析,以确定潜在的相关变量。更严重的精神症状和较低的独立生活能力与无法回答这些问题有关。在社会和人口变量、生活状况和职业状况、收入、心理学家、职业治疗师和社会工作者的访问量方面,居民和护理人员之间的协议是好的到好的。结论:ISDUCS是经济评估的第一个工具,包括翻译和适应巴西情况的精神卫生服务。尽管CRSSI在欧洲精神分裂症患者中广泛使用,但该研究发现,更严重的症状导致高缺失反应率。评估者之间的信度总体上是优秀的。样本量小,初步试验结果不能推广。对保健提供和使用的影响:ISDUCS可能适用于精神疾病患者,但需要额外的信息来源,如护理人员和医疗记录。ISDUCS可用于监测一般实践中保健服务的使用情况。对卫生政策的影响:尽管存在一些局限性,该工具在三项巴西研究中用于衡量精神卫生服务成本,为支持地方精神卫生政策、促进该国的实证研究和支持建模研究生成数据。对进一步研究的影响:应在其他卫生环境和样本中进一步测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信