Search

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new clinical assessment, the Dynamic Assessment of Hearing Aids (DAHA), for a large clinical population. Unlike traditional questionnaire methods, the DAHA has patients use an intuitive graphical computer interface to record visual analogue ratings of satisfaction with various features of their hearing aids (e.g. clarity, cost, appearance). Data were collected from 191 participants.A subset of participants returned for retest. The DAHA items assess satisfaction with hearing aids within four domains: communication, physical features, sound quality, and personal reactions. The concurrent validity was determined by comparing DAHA results to those obtained with the satisfaction with amplification in daily life (SADL). Ratings for personal reactions to hearing aids indicate the most satisfaction, and ratings for communication (especially group conversations and phone use) indicate the least satisfaction. The DAHA total score was found to have good test/retest and high internal consistency. Concurrent validity was supported by a strong correlation between total scores on the DAHA and the SADL. Results suggest the DAHA maybe an effective tool for clinical use.

Reliability of well-known instruments was examined in 202 people with severe mental illness participating in a multisite vocational study. We examined interrater reliability of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the PANSS, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and the Quality of Life Interview. Most scales had good levels of reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficient alphas above .70. However, the SF-36 scales were generally less stable over time, particularly Social Functioning (ICC = .55). Test-retest reliability was lower among less educated respondents and among ethnic minorities. We recommend close monitoring of psychometric issues in future multisite studies.

The authors examined the cumulative effects of work on symptoms, quality of life, and self-esteem for 149 unemployed clients with severe mental illness receiving vocational rehabilitation. Nonvocational measures were assessed at 6-month intervals throughout the 18-month study period, and vocational activity was tracked continuously. On the basis of their predominant work activity over the study period, participants were classified into 4 groups: competitive work, sheltered work, minimal work, and no work. The groups did not differ at baseline on any of the nonvocational measures. Using mixed effects regression analysis to examine rates of change over time, the authors found that the competitive work group showed higher rates of improvement in symptoms; in satisfaction with vocational services, leisure, and finances; and in self-esteem than did participants in a combined minimal work-no work group. The sheltered work group showed no such advantage.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in comparison to Standard Case Management (SCM) for persons with severe mental illness and substance use disorders. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Original data on the effectiveness and social costs of ACT and SCM that were collected between 1989 and 1995. Seven community mental health centers in New Hampshire provided both types of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Persons with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder and a concurrent substance use disorder were randomly assigned to ACT or SCM and followed for three years. The primary variables assessed were substance use, psychiatric symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and social costs. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from interviews at six-month intervals with persons enrolled in treatment and with their service providers. Social cost and service utilization data came from client reports; interviews with informal caregivers; provider information systems and Medicaid claims; law enforcement agencies; courts; and community service providers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants in both groups showed significant reductions in substance use over time. Focusing on quality of life and substance use outcomes, ACT and SCM were not significantly different in cost-effectiveness over the entire three-year study period. Longitudinal analyses showed that SCM tended to be more efficient during the first two years but that ACT was significantly more efficient than SCM during the final year of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In an adequately funded system, ACT is not more cost-effective than SCM. However, ACT efficiency appears to improve over time.

This study compared supported employment services in 2 contrasting programs: (a) Group Skills Training, a professional rehabilitation agency outside of the mental health center that provided pre-employment skills training and support in obtaining and maintaining jobs, or (b) the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model, which integrated clinical and vocational services within the mental health center. People with severe mental disorders who expressed interest in competitive employment (N = 143) were randomly assigned to 1 of these 2 programs. Results showed that clients in the IPS program were more likely to be competitively employed throughout most of the 18-month follow-up. Among those who obtained jobs, there were few group differences, although workers in the IPS program did work more total hours and earn more total wages during the 18-month follow-up. There were no group differences on nonvocational outcomes.

Serving people with mental and other chronic illnesses in community settings may improve compliance and satisfaction with treatment, but existing payment mechanisms often favor office-based treatment. This study examines the effect of a change in Medicaid payment on the location and amount of service provided by case managers. Amounts of service given by treatment providers to 185 of their clients in community settings and in mental health centers were compared before and after reimbursement changed from an all-inclusive prospective rate to a mixed prospective/retrospective payment. Clients were enrolled in two different treatment programs: continuous treatment teams with extensive training in in vivo treatment, and a case management program that emphasized office-based treatment. In-community service increased, and the amount of office-based treatment decreased. Continuous treatment teams increased in-community services more than case managers did; case managers decreased office-based treatment more. There was no change in total amount of services provided. It was concluded that mixed prospective and retrospective reimbursement can remove financial barriers to in-community treatment, but it works best in combination with a training program. Additional research is needed to determine the precise financial impact of such changes.

We studied the efficacy of propranolol (Inderal) compared to alprazolam (Xanax) in 29 patients with a diagnosis of agoraphobia with panic disorder or panic disorder with or without limited phobic avoidance in a 6-week double-blind controlled experiment. Alprazolam is effective in those syndromes, whereas to date only negative or ambiguous results had been reported for propranolol. Fourteen patients received a mean daily dose of 5.0 +/- 2.3 mg of alprazolam and 15 patients received 182.0 +/- 60.5 mg mean daily dose of propranolol. We found both drugs to be effective to suppress panic attacks and reduce avoidance behavior. The only significant between-drug difference was a more rapid onset of alprazolam's panicolytic effect. Propranolol merits further study. We suggest patients worthy of a clinical trial.

We studied the efficacy of propranolol (Inderal) compared to alprazolam (Xanax) in 29 patients with a diagnosis of agoraphobia with panic disorder or panic disorder with or without limited phobic avoidance in a 6-week double-blind controlled experiment. Alprazolam is effective in those syndromes, whereas to date only negative or ambiguous results had been reported for propranolol. Fourteen patients received a mean daily dose of 5.0 +/- 2.3 mg of alprazolam and 15 patients received 182.0 +/- 60.5 mg mean daily dose of propranolol. We found both drugs to be effective to suppress panic attacks and reduce avoidance behavior. The only significant between-drug difference was a more rapid onset of alprazolam's panicolytic effect. Propranolol merits further study. We suggest patients worthy of a clinical trial.

The Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information (COOP) Project conducted a controlled trial on the impact of antismoking advice from office-based physicians. Eighteen primary care medical practices were randomly assigned to be intervention or customary care practices. Medical personnel assigned to the intervention practices were to systematically identify cigarette smokers (among patients aged 35 to 59 years making an office visit), advise them to quit smoking, and provide educational materials. A random sample of 258 smokers was identified and followed-up four months later. Intervention-group smokers were more likely to report being advised to quit smoking (77 percent versus 47 percent) and to attempt quitting (39 percent versus 31 percent), but had success rates similar to those of the other group (6 percent versus 7 percent). We conclude that the medical office is an excellent place to identify large numbers of smokers and initiate attempts at quitting, but find that simple antismoking information and advice are not enough to improve cessation rates.

The Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information (COOP) Project conducted a controlled trial on the impact of antismoking advice from office-based physicians. Eighteen primary care medical practices were randomly assigned to be intervention or customary care practices. Medical personnel assigned to the intervention practices were to systematically identify cigarette smokers (among patients aged 35 to 59 years making an office visit), advise them to quit smoking, and provide educational materials. A random sample of 258 smokers was identified and followed-up four months later. Intervention-group smokers were more likely to report being advised to quit smoking (77 percent versus 47 percent) and to attempt quitting (39 percent versus 31 percent), but had success rates similar to those of the other group (6 percent versus 7 percent). We conclude that the medical office is an excellent place to identify large numbers of smokers and initiate attempts at quitting, but find that simple antismoking information and advice are not enough to improve cessation rates.