Family involvement practices for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a cross-sectional fidelity-based study.
Family involvement
Family psychoeducation
Fidelity scale
Implementation science
Mental health services research
Psychotic disorders
Schizophrenia
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 06 2021
02 06 2021
Historique:
received:
28
03
2021
accepted:
17
05
2021
entrez:
3
6
2021
pubmed:
4
6
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is supported by scientific evidence, as well as legal and ethical considerations, and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. This article reports a cross-sectional measurement of the level of implementation of such guidelines in fifteen community mental health centre units in Norway, and presents a novel fidelity scale to measure basic family involvement and support. The aim was to investigate current family involvement practices comprehensively, as a basis for targeted quality improvement. We employed three fidelity scales, with 12-14 items, to measure family involvement practices. Items were scored from 1 to 5, where 1 equals no implementation and 5 equals full implementation. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, a non-parametric test, and calculation of interrater reliability for the scales. The mean score was 2.33 on the fidelity scale measuring basic family involvement and support. Among patients with psychotic disorders, only 4% had received family psychoeducation. On the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale, measuring practice and content, the mean score was 2.78. Among the eight units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 4.34. On the general organizational index scale, measuring the organisation and implementation of family psychoeducation, the mean score was 1.78. Among the units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 2.46. As a measure of interrater reliability, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the basic family involvement and support scale, 0.93 for the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale and 0.96 for the general organizational index scale. The implementation level of the national guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders was generally poor. The quality of family psychoeducation was high, but few patients had received this evidence-based treatment. Our novel fidelity scale shows promising psychometric properties and may prove a useful tool to improve the quality of health services. There is a need to increase the implementation of family involvement practices in Norway, to reach a larger percentage of patients and relatives. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is supported by scientific evidence, as well as legal and ethical considerations, and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. This article reports a cross-sectional measurement of the level of implementation of such guidelines in fifteen community mental health centre units in Norway, and presents a novel fidelity scale to measure basic family involvement and support. The aim was to investigate current family involvement practices comprehensively, as a basis for targeted quality improvement.
METHODS
We employed three fidelity scales, with 12-14 items, to measure family involvement practices. Items were scored from 1 to 5, where 1 equals no implementation and 5 equals full implementation. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, a non-parametric test, and calculation of interrater reliability for the scales.
RESULTS
The mean score was 2.33 on the fidelity scale measuring basic family involvement and support. Among patients with psychotic disorders, only 4% had received family psychoeducation. On the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale, measuring practice and content, the mean score was 2.78. Among the eight units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 4.34. On the general organizational index scale, measuring the organisation and implementation of family psychoeducation, the mean score was 1.78. Among the units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 2.46. As a measure of interrater reliability, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the basic family involvement and support scale, 0.93 for the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale and 0.96 for the general organizational index scale.
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation level of the national guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders was generally poor. The quality of family psychoeducation was high, but few patients had received this evidence-based treatment. Our novel fidelity scale shows promising psychometric properties and may prove a useful tool to improve the quality of health services. There is a need to increase the implementation of family involvement practices in Norway, to reach a larger percentage of patients and relatives.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34078306
doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03300-4
pii: 10.1186/s12888-021-03300-4
pmc: PMC8170939
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03869177']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
285Références
Schizophr Bull. 2006 Oct;32(4):765-75
pubmed: 16844723
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 May;50(5):410-72
pubmed: 27106681
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020 Nov;47(6):920-926
pubmed: 32107674
Lancet. 2013 May 11;381(9878):1634-41
pubmed: 23537606
Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Nov;66(11):1194-9
pubmed: 26278227
J Marital Fam Ther. 2012 Jan;38(1):101-21
pubmed: 22283383
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Apr;206(4):268-74
pubmed: 25833867
Br J Psychiatry. 2019 May;214(5):273-278
pubmed: 31012407
BMJ Open. 2014 Oct 03;4(10):e006108
pubmed: 25280809
Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Aug;56:13-24
pubmed: 28578249
Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Apr;33(3):372-82
pubmed: 23410719
Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2019 Apr;55(2):277-290
pubmed: 30604874
BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8
pubmed: 17947786
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 19;9(3):e91882
pubmed: 24647274
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;197(5):350-6
pubmed: 21037211
BMJ. 2004 Jul 17;329(7458):136
pubmed: 15240438
BMJ. 2014 Feb 12;348:g1173
pubmed: 24523363
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;12(4):535-560
pubmed: 29076263
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020 Nov;47(6):894-900
pubmed: 32323217
Psychol Med. 2002 Jul;32(5):763-82
pubmed: 12171372
Psychiatr Serv. 2005 Sep;56(9):1061-9
pubmed: 16148318
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Oct 9;20(1):934
pubmed: 33036605
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 May 15;17(1):349
pubmed: 28506296
Nord J Psychiatry. 2016;70(3):231-40
pubmed: 26328910
Front Psychol. 2017 Mar 27;8:371
pubmed: 28396643
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 08;(12):CD000088
pubmed: 21154340
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2011;32(11):703-10
pubmed: 21992262
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020 Nov;47(6):874-884
pubmed: 31691055
Schizophr Bull. 2010 Jan;36(1):48-70
pubmed: 19955389
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015 Apr;265(3):173-88
pubmed: 25384674