设计人格障碍测量反馈系统:结果监测应基于症状严重程度还是人格功能?

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Marieke van Geffen, Hester V. Eeren, Joost Hutsebaut, Odette Brand-de Wilde
{"title":"设计人格障碍测量反馈系统:结果监测应基于症状严重程度还是人格功能?","authors":"Marieke van Geffen,&nbsp;Hester V. Eeren,&nbsp;Joost Hutsebaut,&nbsp;Odette Brand-de Wilde","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01406-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measurement feedback systems (MFS) providing insight in treatment progress can improve mental healthcare outcomes. However, there is no uniform measurement feedback system that could be used to measure treatment progress for personality disorders (PD). This study compared two types of measures: a generic measure for symptom severity (Brief Symptom Index, BSI) and a specific measure for personality functioning (Severity Indices of Personality Problems, SIPP) at different points in time in order to provide insight in the most suitable measuring moment for a MFS for PD. This study is conducted in a sample of 996 Dutch PD patients (mean age 33.51 (SD 10.42), 73.1% female). Symptom severity and personality functioning were assessed before and multiple times during treatment, using a timespan of 24 months. Outcomes were examined over time using multilevel modeling. Symptom severity (generic measure) and personality functioning (specific measure) improved equally after 24 months. However, during these 24 months, different patterns of change were observed for symptom severity compared to severity of personality problems. In general, symptom severity decreased most during the 1st months of treatment, whereas personality functioning improved only after 6 months of treatment. A generic instrument of symptom severity is able to measure early changes in symptom distress but may not be able to measure longer term changes in personality functioning. The authors discuss policy implications for benchmarking using specific measures in the treatment of personality disorders.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"241 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing a Measurement Feedback System for Personality Disorders: Should Outcome Monitoring be Based on Symptom Severity or Personality Functioning?\",\"authors\":\"Marieke van Geffen,&nbsp;Hester V. Eeren,&nbsp;Joost Hutsebaut,&nbsp;Odette Brand-de Wilde\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10488-024-01406-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Measurement feedback systems (MFS) providing insight in treatment progress can improve mental healthcare outcomes. However, there is no uniform measurement feedback system that could be used to measure treatment progress for personality disorders (PD). This study compared two types of measures: a generic measure for symptom severity (Brief Symptom Index, BSI) and a specific measure for personality functioning (Severity Indices of Personality Problems, SIPP) at different points in time in order to provide insight in the most suitable measuring moment for a MFS for PD. This study is conducted in a sample of 996 Dutch PD patients (mean age 33.51 (SD 10.42), 73.1% female). Symptom severity and personality functioning were assessed before and multiple times during treatment, using a timespan of 24 months. Outcomes were examined over time using multilevel modeling. Symptom severity (generic measure) and personality functioning (specific measure) improved equally after 24 months. However, during these 24 months, different patterns of change were observed for symptom severity compared to severity of personality problems. In general, symptom severity decreased most during the 1st months of treatment, whereas personality functioning improved only after 6 months of treatment. A generic instrument of symptom severity is able to measure early changes in symptom distress but may not be able to measure longer term changes in personality functioning. The authors discuss policy implications for benchmarking using specific measures in the treatment of personality disorders.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"241 - 251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-024-01406-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-024-01406-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

测量反馈系统(MFS)可帮助人们深入了解治疗进展情况,从而改善心理保健效果。然而,目前还没有统一的测量反馈系统可用于测量人格障碍(PD)的治疗进展。本研究比较了两种测量方法:在不同时间点测量症状严重程度的通用测量方法(简短症状指数,BSI)和测量人格功能的特定测量方法(人格问题严重程度指数,SIPP),以便为人格障碍的 MFS 提供最合适的测量时机。本研究以 996 名荷兰帕金森病患者为样本(平均年龄 33.51 岁(标准差 10.42 岁),73.1% 为女性)。以24个月为时间跨度,在治疗前和治疗期间多次评估症状严重程度和人格功能。采用多层次建模对随时间变化的结果进行了研究。24 个月后,症状严重程度(通用指标)和人格功能(特定指标)的改善程度相当。然而,在这 24 个月中,症状严重程度与人格问题严重程度的变化模式有所不同。一般来说,症状严重程度在治疗的头几个月下降最多,而人格功能则在治疗 6 个月后才有所改善。症状严重程度的通用工具能够测量症状困扰的早期变化,但可能无法测量人格功能的长期变化。作者讨论了在人格障碍治疗中使用特定测量方法制定基准的政策影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Designing a Measurement Feedback System for Personality Disorders: Should Outcome Monitoring be Based on Symptom Severity or Personality Functioning?

Designing a Measurement Feedback System for Personality Disorders: Should Outcome Monitoring be Based on Symptom Severity or Personality Functioning?

Measurement feedback systems (MFS) providing insight in treatment progress can improve mental healthcare outcomes. However, there is no uniform measurement feedback system that could be used to measure treatment progress for personality disorders (PD). This study compared two types of measures: a generic measure for symptom severity (Brief Symptom Index, BSI) and a specific measure for personality functioning (Severity Indices of Personality Problems, SIPP) at different points in time in order to provide insight in the most suitable measuring moment for a MFS for PD. This study is conducted in a sample of 996 Dutch PD patients (mean age 33.51 (SD 10.42), 73.1% female). Symptom severity and personality functioning were assessed before and multiple times during treatment, using a timespan of 24 months. Outcomes were examined over time using multilevel modeling. Symptom severity (generic measure) and personality functioning (specific measure) improved equally after 24 months. However, during these 24 months, different patterns of change were observed for symptom severity compared to severity of personality problems. In general, symptom severity decreased most during the 1st months of treatment, whereas personality functioning improved only after 6 months of treatment. A generic instrument of symptom severity is able to measure early changes in symptom distress but may not be able to measure longer term changes in personality functioning. The authors discuss policy implications for benchmarking using specific measures in the treatment of personality disorders.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
×
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