Assessing reliable and clinically significant change on Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: method for displaying longitudinal data

Unit of Epidemiology and Social Psychiatry, 'Mario Negri' Institute for Pharmacological Research, Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.77). 09/2005; 39(8):719-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01656.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many authors recommended that reliable and clinically significant change (RCSC) should be calculated when reporting results of interventions. To test the reliability of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) in identifying RCSC, we applied the Jacobson and Truax model to two HoNOS assessments in a large group of people evaluated in 10 community mental health services in Lombardy, Italy, in 2000.
The HoNOS was administered to 9817 patients; of these, 4759 (48%) were re-assessed. Reliable change (RC) was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (alpha), as a parameter of the reliability of the measure. Clinical significance cut-offs were calculated using a classification of severity based on HoNOS items.
In the whole sample, the clinical improvement cut-off was 11 and the remission cut-off was 5. Considering the severe patients, the clinical improvement cut-off was 12. The RC index calculated on the whole group and on the subgroup of severe patients indicated that eight-point and seven-point changes, respectively, were needed to be confident that a real change had occurred. Longitudinal changes were depicted on two-dimensional graphs as examples of reporting RCSC on HoNOS total scores in a routine data collection: 91.6% of the whole sample (4361) was stable, 5.6% (269) improved and 1.8% (129) worsened.
Our study proposes a methodological framework for computing RCSC normative data on a widely used outcome scale and for identifying different degrees of clinical change.

Download full-text


Available from: Alberto Parabiaghi, Mar 19, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the efficacy of cognitive remediation interventions has been demonstrated in several experimental studies on schizophrenia, few studies have investigated the predictors of response to such interventions. We were interested in determining what factors contribute to a positive outcome after cognitive rehabilitation and whether different factors are associated with different degrees of improvement in cognitive and real-world functioning in individual patients after cognitive remediation. The study sample consisted of 56 patients with schizophrenia who had completed a 6-month cognitive remediation intervention and showed different cognitive and functional outcomes. Measures of cognitive and functional amelioration after cognitive remediation were analyzed in relation to patients' clinical, neuropsychological and functional variables at baseline using logistic regression analysis. Lower antipsychotic intake at baseline predicted cognitive improvement, whereas lower antipsychotic intake, severity of specific symptoms, and higher neurocognitive functioning (particularly executive functions and verbal memory) at baseline were associated with cognitive normalization after remediation treatment. Functional improvement was predicted by lower patient age and type of cognitive remediation intervention, whereas functional normalization was related to lower baseline antipsychotic intake and, at a trend level, to higher executive functioning and type of cognitive remediation intervention. Cognitive remediation could be more effective in younger, less disorganized, and cognitively less impaired patients, who take a smaller amount of antipsychotics. The predictive role of lower antipsychotic dosage on cognitive and functional outcome after remediation suggests either that patients with less severe illness could gain better advantage from cognitive remediation interventions or that high dose or complex antipsychotic therapy may limit the effectiveness of such interventions.
    Schizophrenia Research 08/2013; 150(1). DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2013.08.011 · 4.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract INTRODUCTION: The Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS), an interview-based assessment of cognition, has proved to be a valid measure of cognitive performance in patients with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to analyze the validity of this scale in a naturalistic setting representative of the Italian system of psychiatric care, and to test whether the SCoRS could be appropriately used in different phases of illness and contexts of care. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria) (N=59 clinically stabilized patients; N=27 recently hospitalized patients) were administered the SCoRS. The reliability of SCoRS was assessed and global ratings were correlated with neurocognitive, clinical, and psychosocial functioning measures. RESULTS: SCoRS inter-rater and test-retest reliability were high. In clinically stabilized patients, SCoRS global ratings were significantly correlated with composite scores of cognitive performance (global cognitive index: r=-0.570, P<0.001), symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score: r=0.602, P<0.001), and psychosocial functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): r=-0.532, P<0.001; Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS): r=0.433, P<0.001). On the other hand, no such correlations were found in recently hospitalized patients. Correlations with neuropsychological and functional measures were less significant as the severity of the patients' symptoms, especially positive symptoms, increased. CONCLUSION: The SCoRS is a valid measure of cognitive performance and is related to psychosocial functioning, especially in clinically stable patients with schizophrenia. The usefulness of the SCoRS in patients recently admitted to hospital for an acute phase of illness is uncertain. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Schizophrenia Research 03/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2013.02.035. · 4.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research into community housing programs for people with severe mental illness is underexposed. The Dutch UTOPIA study describes characteristics of their service users, which may predict their allocation to either supported housing or supported independent living programs. Additionally, a comparison is made with English studies. 119 Care coordinators of Dutch residential care institutes and 534 service users participated in a cross-sectional survey which includes socio-demographic data, clinical data, measures of functioning, needs for care and quality of life. Differences between Dutch residents and independent living service users were small, making predictions of care allocation difficult. This similarity suggests a possible lack of methodical assessment in the allocation procedure of people who are eligible for residential housing or independent living programs. This is largely comparable to the English situation. In comparison with their English counterparts, Dutch service users have more met needs and are more engaged in occupational activities.
    Community Mental Health Journal 06/2011; 48(3):321-7. DOI:10.1007/s10597-011-9381-1 · 1.03 Impact Factor