Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39614162›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Perspectives of people with schizophrenia on clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study.

Utako Sawada, Asami Matsunaga, Ayano Taneda, Natsu Sasaki, Sosei Yamaguchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Utako SawadaDepartment of Psychiatric Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-2523
Asami MatsunagaDepartment of Mental Health & Psychiatric Nursing, Graduate School of Health Care Sciences, Institute of Science Tokyo, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8375-0146
Ayano TanedaFaculty of Health and Social Services, Kanagawa University of Human Services, 1-10-1 Heisei-Cho, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, 238-8522, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5985-8577
Natsu SasakiDepartment of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6097-5948
Sosei YamaguchiDepartment of Community Mental Health & Law, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, 4-1-1 Ogawa-Higashi, Kodaira, 187-8553, Japan. sosei.yama@ncnp.go.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0579-4431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past half-century, numerous scales have been designed to quantify outcomes in people with severe mental health disorders. However, little is known about the views of people diagnosed with schizophrenia on individual outcome scales, particularly outside of European countries.

aimWe conducted a qualitative study to examine the perspectives of people with schizophrenia on multiple scales in Japan.

methodsEleven participants took part in focus group interviews. Five had extensive experience as mental health peer supporters; the others had no such experience. To address potential power imbalances and facilitate dynamic discourse, participants were intentionally divided into two groups on the basis of peer support experience, and two simultaneous two-hour focus group interviews were conducted in separate rooms. The participants reviewed 12 clinical and patient-reported outcome measures and discussed their views on each measure. Interview data for each group were combined prior to analysis and qualitatively analyzed by four researchers using a thematic analysis approach.

resultsThe average age of the participants was 42.7 years (SD = 8.3), and six were male. On average, the participants had been living with schizophrenia for 22.2 years (SD = 11.1). After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified, each containing two to seven subthemes: 1) validity and format of the scale construct, 2) factors affecting the accuracy of responses, 3) plain language and familiar words in Japanese culture, 4) psychological impact on the respondents, and 5) containing important items in everyday life.

conclusionThe participants provided both favorable and unfavorable feedback on each scale. When implementing research utilizing clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures, researchers should exercise caution considering the potential emotional impact on respondents. Furthermore, scale development should take into account the cultural background and psychological burden experienced by the respondents.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative ResearchSchizophreniaAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSchizophrenic PsychologyPatient-reported outcome measurePersonal recoveryQualitative analysisScalesSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID39614162
PMCPMC11607935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.