Erik Wennström1, Frits-Axel Wiesel. 1. Department of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, Uppsala University Hospital, 75017 Uppsala, Sweden. erik.wennstrom@neuro.uu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subsidiary findings in several studies indicate that the standard summary scores (total number of needs, met needs and unmet needs) of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) may conceal important differences among patient populations at the item level of the measure. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in need and need status at the item level are adequately reflected by changes in the summary scores. METHODS: In a longitudinal design assessments of need in 1997 and 2003 of 192 outpatients (mean age 45.4 years, 78.1% psychotic disorders) in routine mental health care were compared. RESULTS: None of the summary scores changed between 1997 and 2003. This result, however, was contradicted by significant changes in needs at the item level. CONCLUSIONS: The summary scores conceal changes in need on the underlying items and thus is recommended not to be used as dependent measures when comparisons among populations or between points in time are of interest.
BACKGROUND: Subsidiary findings in several studies indicate that the standard summary scores (total number of needs, met needs and unmet needs) of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) may conceal important differences among patient populations at the item level of the measure. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in need and need status at the item level are adequately reflected by changes in the summary scores. METHODS: In a longitudinal design assessments of need in 1997 and 2003 of 192 outpatients (mean age 45.4 years, 78.1% psychotic disorders) in routine mental health care were compared. RESULTS: None of the summary scores changed between 1997 and 2003. This result, however, was contradicted by significant changes in needs at the item level. CONCLUSIONS: The summary scores conceal changes in need on the underlying items and thus is recommended not to be used as dependent measures when comparisons among populations or between points in time are of interest.
Authors: L Hansson; H R Vinding; T Mackeprang; A Sourander; G Werdelin; A Bengtsson-Tops; O Bjarnason; J Dybbro; L Nilsson; M Sandlund; K Sørgaard; T Middelboe Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: T Becker; M Knapp; H C Knudsen; A Schene; M Tansella; G Thornicroft; J L Vázquez-Barquero Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: P McCrone; M Leese; G Thornicroft; A Schene; H C Knudsen; J L Vázquez-Barquero; M Tansella; T Becker Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: M Phelan; M Slade; G Thornicroft; G Dunn; F Holloway; T Wykes; G Strathdee; L Loftus; P McCrone; P Hayward Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Karin Landolt; Wulf Rössler; Tom Burns; Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross; Silvana Galderisi; Jan Libiger; Dieter Naber; Eske M Derks; René S Kahn; W Wolfgang Fleischhacker Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Marjan Drukker; Kim van Dillen; Maarten Bak; Ron Mengelers; Jim van Os; Philippe Delespaul Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Durk Wiersma; Rob van den Brink; Kerstin Wolters; Rosemarie McCabe; Jens Bullenkamp; Lars Hansson; Christoph Lauber; Rafael Martinez-Leal; Wulf Rössler; Hans Salize; Tommy Björkman; Francisco Torres-Gonzales; Donna J Wright; Stefan Priebe Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Marjan Drukker; Maarten Bak; Joost à Campo; Ger Driessen; Jim Van Os; Philippe Delespaul Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 4.328