J M Vermeulen1, N F Schirmbeck2, M J van Tricht2, L de Haan2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.m.vermeulen@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A key indicator of quality of treatment from the patient's perspective is expressed by satisfaction with care. Our aim was to (i) explore satisfaction and its relation to clinical outcome measures; and (ii) explore the predictive value of satisfaction for the course of outcomes over three years. METHODS: Data of 654 patients with a non-affective psychosis included in a naturalistic longitudinal cohort study were analyzed. We included 506 males and 148 females with a mean age of 30.47 (SD 7.24) from The Netherlands. Satisfaction was measured with the self-rating Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. A wide range of interviewer-rated (e.g., Positive and Negative Symptom Scale) and self-rated (e.g., World Health Organization Quality of Life); outcomes of low, intermediate and high satisfied patients were compared using ANOVA, Chi2 or Kruskal-Wallis tests. The predictive value of satisfaction level on clinical outcomes after three years was tested using regression models. RESULTS: Satisfaction levels were low (19.4%), intermediate (48.9%) or high (31.7%). High satisfied patients showed significantly better interviewer-rated outcomes, e.g., less severe psychotic symptoms, and self-rated outcomes, e.g., better quality of life, compared to patients with intermediate or low satisfaction. Higher levels of satisfaction with care at baseline predicted a reduction of positive symptoms three years later (B=-.09, P-value=.013). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction of patients with psychosis is a valuable monitoring measure since high satisfied patients show more favorable outcomes ranging from psychopathological symptoms to quality of life. Further research into explanations of lower levels of satisfaction is commendable in order to improve outcomes.
BACKGROUND: A key indicator of quality of treatment from the patient's perspective is expressed by satisfaction with care. Our aim was to (i) explore satisfaction and its relation to clinical outcome measures; and (ii) explore the predictive value of satisfaction for the course of outcomes over three years. METHODS: Data of 654 patients with a non-affective psychosis included in a naturalistic longitudinal cohort study were analyzed. We included 506 males and 148 females with a mean age of 30.47 (SD 7.24) from The Netherlands. Satisfaction was measured with the self-rating Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. A wide range of interviewer-rated (e.g., Positive and Negative Symptom Scale) and self-rated (e.g., World Health Organization Quality of Life); outcomes of low, intermediate and high satisfied patients were compared using ANOVA, Chi2 or Kruskal-Wallis tests. The predictive value of satisfaction level on clinical outcomes after three years was tested using regression models. RESULTS: Satisfaction levels were low (19.4%), intermediate (48.9%) or high (31.7%). High satisfied patients showed significantly better interviewer-rated outcomes, e.g., less severe psychotic symptoms, and self-rated outcomes, e.g., better quality of life, compared to patients with intermediate or low satisfaction. Higher levels of satisfaction with care at baseline predicted a reduction of positive symptoms three years later (B=-.09, P-value=.013). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction of patients with psychosis is a valuable monitoring measure since high satisfied patients show more favorable outcomes ranging from psychopathological symptoms to quality of life. Further research into explanations of lower levels of satisfaction is commendable in order to improve outcomes.
Authors: Daniel C Stokes; Rachel Kishton; Haley J McCalpin; Arthur P Pelullo; Zachary F Meisel; Rinad S Beidas; Raina M Merchant Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Stefan Siebert; Karolina Leopold; Johanna Baumgardt; Laura-Sophie von Hardenberg; Eva Burkhardt; Andreas Bechdolf Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 5.760