Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27604273›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2016

Development and validation of a contextual measure of functioning for people living with severe mental disorders in rural Africa.

Kassahun Habtamu, Atalay Alem, Girmay Medhin, Abebaw Fekadu, Martin Prince, Charlotte Hanlon

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kassahun HabtamuDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, P.O.BOX: 1176, Ethiopia. Kasshabmek@gmail.com.
Atalay AlemDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, P.O.BOX: 1176, Ethiopia.
Girmay MedhinAklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Abebaw FekaduDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, P.O.BOX: 1176, Ethiopia.
Martin PrinceCentre for Global Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.
Charlotte HanlonDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, P.O.BOX: 1176, Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University · ETKing's College London · GB

Funding

Shared Research Project ComponentU19MH095699 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI ALEM, ATALAY, LUND, CRICK · 2011 to 2015
$2.6M
NIMH NIH HHS U19 MH095699
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost measures of functioning in people with severe mental disorders (SMD) have been developed in Western societies. Many of the questions in these scales are culture-bound, fail to capture differentiation of tasks by gender and are difficult to adapt to other contexts. The aim of this study was to develop a measure of functioning for people with SMD which is contextually appropriate for a rural African setting.

methodsA review of existing scales, a qualitative study, free listing and pile sorting exercises, and expert consensus were used to establish a pool of items. Cognitive interviewing guided initial item reduction and refinement. The resulting scale was pilot-tested in people with SMD (n = 200) and their caregivers (n = 200) to inform further item reduction based on psychometric properties. The final Butajira Functioning Scale (BFS) comprised 33 items that were common to both men and women, and an additional eight items for women only, covering the following domains: self-care, work, and family and community participation. Psychometric properties of the finalized BFS were examined in a facility-based sample of 150 people with SMD and their caregivers (n = 150), with longitudinal follow-up of n = 84.

resultsThe BFS in people with SMD had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.99), acceptable convergent validity (r = 0.88 with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule [WHODAS-2.0] and r = 0.32 with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS-E]) and was sensitive to change following treatment (effect size =0.50). Addition of the items specific to women did not improve the psychometric properties. The caregiver version had similar psychometric properties but higher mean values for each item and better responsiveness to change. Exploratory factor analysis of the BFS provided evidence of construct validity, with four underlying dimensions.

conclusionsWe have developed a measure of functioning for people with SMD in a rural, low income country setting with acceptable psychometric properties. The BFS is easy to administer, sensitive to changes following treatment and has content, construct and convergent validity. The BFS includes domains from existing measures, but has more emphasis on social and occupational domains, which reflects priorities in the setting.

Indexed as

Brief Psychiatric Rating ScaleDisability EvaluationRural PopulationAdultAfricaFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMental DisordersPilot ProjectsPovertyPsychometricsQualitative ResearchAfricaDisabilityEthiopiaFactor analysisFunctioningMental disordersSensitivity to changeValidation

Identifiers

PMID27604273
PMCPMC5015207
OpenAlexW2510797919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.