Cargando…

Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?

BACKGROUND: In the last few years there seems to be an emerging interest for including the patients' perspective in assessing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), with treatment satisfaction surveys being the most commonly-used method of incorporating this point of view. The present study con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trujols, Joan, Siñol, Núria, Iraurgi, Ioseba, Batlle, Francisca, Guàrdia, Joan, Pérez de los Cobos, José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21871064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-8-23
_version_ 1782212121762725888
author Trujols, Joan
Siñol, Núria
Iraurgi, Ioseba
Batlle, Francisca
Guàrdia, Joan
Pérez de los Cobos, José
author_facet Trujols, Joan
Siñol, Núria
Iraurgi, Ioseba
Batlle, Francisca
Guàrdia, Joan
Pérez de los Cobos, José
author_sort Trujols, Joan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the last few years there seems to be an emerging interest for including the patients' perspective in assessing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), with treatment satisfaction surveys being the most commonly-used method of incorporating this point of view. The present study considers the perspective of patients on MMT when assessing the outcomes of this treatment, acknowledging the validity of this approach as an indicator. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the concordance between improvement assessment performed by two members of the clinical staff (a psychiatrist and a nurse) and assessment carried out by MMT patients themselves. METHOD: Patients (n = 110) and their respective psychiatrist (n = 5) and nurse (n = 1) completed a scale for assessing how the patient's condition had changed from the beginning of MMT, using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale (CGI-I), respectively. RESULTS: The global improvement assessed by patients showed weak concordance with the assessments made by nurses (Quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.13, p > 0.05) and by psychiatrists (Quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.19, p = 0.0086), although in the latter, concordance was statistically significant. The percentage of improved patients was significantly higher in the case of the assessments made by patients, compared with those made by nurses (90.9% vs. 80%, Z-statistic = 2.10, p = 0.0354) and by psychiatrists (90.9% vs. 50%, Z-statistic = 6.48, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: MMT patients' perception of improvement shows low concordance with the clinical staff's perspective. Assessment of MMT effectiveness should also focus on patient's evaluation of the outcomes or changes achieved, thus including indicators based on the patient's experiences, provided that MMT aim is to be more patient centred and to cover different needs of patients themselves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3175165
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31751652011-09-18 Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives? Trujols, Joan Siñol, Núria Iraurgi, Ioseba Batlle, Francisca Guàrdia, Joan Pérez de los Cobos, José Harm Reduct J Research BACKGROUND: In the last few years there seems to be an emerging interest for including the patients' perspective in assessing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), with treatment satisfaction surveys being the most commonly-used method of incorporating this point of view. The present study considers the perspective of patients on MMT when assessing the outcomes of this treatment, acknowledging the validity of this approach as an indicator. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the concordance between improvement assessment performed by two members of the clinical staff (a psychiatrist and a nurse) and assessment carried out by MMT patients themselves. METHOD: Patients (n = 110) and their respective psychiatrist (n = 5) and nurse (n = 1) completed a scale for assessing how the patient's condition had changed from the beginning of MMT, using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale (CGI-I), respectively. RESULTS: The global improvement assessed by patients showed weak concordance with the assessments made by nurses (Quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.13, p > 0.05) and by psychiatrists (Quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.19, p = 0.0086), although in the latter, concordance was statistically significant. The percentage of improved patients was significantly higher in the case of the assessments made by patients, compared with those made by nurses (90.9% vs. 80%, Z-statistic = 2.10, p = 0.0354) and by psychiatrists (90.9% vs. 50%, Z-statistic = 6.48, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: MMT patients' perception of improvement shows low concordance with the clinical staff's perspective. Assessment of MMT effectiveness should also focus on patient's evaluation of the outcomes or changes achieved, thus including indicators based on the patient's experiences, provided that MMT aim is to be more patient centred and to cover different needs of patients themselves. BioMed Central 2011-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3175165/ /pubmed/21871064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-8-23 Text en Copyright ©2011 Trujols et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Trujols, Joan
Siñol, Núria
Iraurgi, Ioseba
Batlle, Francisca
Guàrdia, Joan
Pérez de los Cobos, José
Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title_full Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title_fullStr Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title_full_unstemmed Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title_short Patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: Differing perspectives?
title_sort patient and clinician's ratings of improvement in methadone-maintained patients: differing perspectives?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21871064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-8-23
work_keys_str_mv AT trujolsjoan patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives
AT sinolnuria patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives
AT iraurgiioseba patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives
AT batllefrancisca patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives
AT guardiajoan patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives
AT perezdeloscobosjose patientandcliniciansratingsofimprovementinmethadonemaintainedpatientsdifferingperspectives