Search

Copyright of Psychiatria Polska is the property of Editorial Committee of Polish Psychiatric Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Psychiatria Polska is the property of Editorial Committee of Polish Psychiatric Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Psychiatria Polska is the property of Editorial Committee of Polish Psychiatric Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim. To analyse the recipients' and staff opinions from the mental health and social care services on preferred terms describing people with mental disorders. Method. In 2008 and 2010, 634 recipients and 397 providers from Warsaw mental health and social care services, answered survey on preferred terms describing people with mental disorders anonymously. Results. The term "patient" was the most preferred one, as well as by the recipients (76.2%), as the providers (87.7%) of the services. The second choice among the recipients of the services, however much less preferred, was the term "person using mental health services" (25.1%), among the providers "person with mental disorders" (25.9%). With similar frequency the recipients indicated the term "person receiving psychiatric treatment" (22.4%) and "person with mental disorders" (22.1%); the staff "person with mental problems" (23.2%). The terms: "user" (3.9% recipients, 2.0% providers), "beneficiary" (respectively 5.2%, 2.0%), "client" (7.4%, 6.8%) were the less preferred ones. The recipients from out-patient clinics and community based facilities as well as from the nursing home, occupational therapy workshop and home care services also favoured the term "patient" (71.1%, 77.8%, 63.9%, 68.3% respectively). In spite of staff profession and number of years spent working in mental health or social care services the term "patient" was the most preferred one. The providers from nursing home preferred the term "person mentally ill" (nearly 61%) and "person with mental disorders" (57%). Conclusions. The term "patient" was the most preferred one in the group of recipients and service providers. The form of services provided did not differentiate the recipients' opinion in regards preferred terms. Profession and number of years spent working in mental health or social care services did not differentiate the providers' opinion in regards preferred terms. The providers from nursing home indicated the term "person mentally ill" and "person with mental disorders" the most frequently. Further dialogue on the preferred terms is needed, since they might empower or stigmatise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between clinical and neuropsychological measures of language disorders as well as characteristics of the mental condition of patients diagnosed as having schizophrenic disorders., Method: There were 45 persons with schizophrenic disorder (acc. ICD-10) examined with The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the side effect rating scale (UKU), Wisconsin Cards Storting Test (WCST), verbal fluency task, Ruff's Test, "Similarities" --WAIS-R subtest, 10 graphics of The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Patient's speech was evaluated independently by two diagnosticians using Thought, Language and Communication Scale (TLCS)., Results: Time since the onset of illness and the number of hospitalisations were associated with total TLCS scores and with most of the WCST indicators. Total amount and most of the particular language disorders correlated positively with total PANSS scores. Total amount of language disorders was connected with the number of trials, which were necessary to complete the first category and also with the global scores obtained in "Similarities". There were also many correlations between particular language phenomenons and results of several neuropsychological tests., Conclusions: Correlation between psychopathological evaluation of language disorders according to TLCS and evaluation of the schizophrenic syndrome score is found to be significant. The psychopathological rating of general and particular language disorders shows significant correlations with some indicators of executive function, verbal and nonverbal fluency and the ability for abstract thinking.

Aim: The Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (BRMAS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) are both popular rating scales for mania. Until now BRMAS has not had a Polish language version BRMAS, although it may be particularly useful because of its twin depression (melancholia) rating scale (BRMES). No attempt of evaluation of the scales were made in Poland until now. Attempts to compare their worth are rare in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the two scales., Method: Thirty-five patients hospitalised for mania in the course of affective, schizophrenic and organic disorders were assessed by means of two mania rating scales (BRMAS, YRMS), as well as with clinical global impression (CGI) scale, and its parallel versions for mania (CGI-M) and treatment adverse events (CGI-SE). Two rating scales for psychotic syndromes (PANSS, KOSS-S) was also used. Patients were assessed three times. First three diagnosticians evaluated simultaneously and independently the patients' mental state, and then--after one and two weeks--one of them. As reliability measures, inter-rater, test-retest, and internal consistency indices were analysed. As validity measures, a clinical meaning of descriptive characteristics of the scales (external validity), and a comparison with alternative tools for mania rating (criterion, diagnostic validity) were performed. Specificity and sensitivity of BRMAS and YMRS in relation to clinical criterion of severe mania (CGI > or = 5) was analysed by means of ROC curve. As feasibility measure observations made during assessments were used., Results: BRMAS and YMRS revealed satisfactory convergence between assessments of the three diagnosticians (Spearman's rho > 0.72, no significant difference in non-parametric Friedman test), repeatability after a week (rho > 0.52) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha for BRMAS > 0.86, for YMRS > 0.73). Profile and dynamics of symptoms in the three successive assessments (each week) depicted changes consistent with expectations, which proved external validity of the scales. Mutual, high correlations between the BRMAS and YMRS (rho > 0.90), between them and CGI-M scale (rho >77), and between them and some meaningful items of psychosis rating scales (PANSS, KOSS-S) may be a mark of their diagnostic validity. ROC for both scales revealed similar, extensive areas under curve (AUC > 0.947; p < 0.000). BRMAS score above 24 points predicted severe mania with 92% sensitivity and 91% specificity. By analogy, YRMAS score above 29 points allowed this diagnosis with 83% sensitivity and 91% specificity. Practically no difficulties in application of the scale under study were noted., Conclusions: Both compared mania scales revealed satisfactory indices of reliability and validity. They are also feasible tools. However limited size of the group under study has not allowed more penetrating analysis, particularly that of validity. This is why the study requires continuation.

Aim: To analyse the patients' and staff opinions on preferred terms in regards recipients of mental health services., Method: In 2008, 489 patients and 318 providers from one of Warsaw mental health services answered the survey on preferred terms in regards recipients of mental health services anonymously., Results: The term "patient" was the most preferred, as well as by the recipients (77.5%), as the providers (87.7%) of the services. The second choice in both groups, however much less preferred was the term "person with mental disorders" (respectively 18.2% and 22.3%) and indicated by the patients "person using mental health services" (18.2%). The less preferred were the terms: "user" (2.0% by the patients, 1.6% the providers), "beneficiary" (respectively 3.3%, 2.5%), "client" (5.5%, 5%). The patients from day hospitals and community based facilities also favoured the term "patient" (85.0% responders). In spite of staff occupation and number of years spent working in mental health services, the term "patient" was the most preferred one., Conclusions: The term "patient" was the most preferred one in the group of patients and service providers. The form of services provided did not differentiate the patients' opinion in regards to the preferred terms. Occupation and number of years spent working in mental health services did not differentiate the providers' opinion in regards to the preferred terms. Further dialogue on the preferred terms is needed, since they might empower or stigmatise.

Aim: To analyse psychometric value of the Polish version of the GEOPTE Scale, a self-rating scale measuring social cognition among persons suffering from schizophrenic psychoses., Method: Fifty patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia according to ICD-10 criteria were assessed by the scale under study. Analysis of its usefulness included: reliability (as internal consistency), validity - as content, construct, and diagnostic validity in relation to selected measures of mental state (CGI scale, PANSS), social (GAF scale, SOFAS), and cognitive functioning (WCST and N-back test), and feasibility of the scale - according to observed patients' coping with the task., Results: The scale revealed good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84) and observed feasibility. Descriptive characteristics of the scale's items an its principal component structure (two components interpreted as basic cognitive processes and social cognition) resembled findings of the Spanish Authors in the original study. It may be considered as proof of content and, to some extent, construct (factorial) validity of the scale. Criterion validity seems to be less certain. With exception of a weak correlation of the GEOPTE scale with social and occupational functioning (measured by SOFAS), no significant correlation were detected with other diagnostic validators applied in the study., Conclusions: Polish version of the GEOPTE scale seems to have satisfactory reliability and feasibility. Its validity remains uncertain and open for further study.