Measuring personal recovery in a low-intensity community mental healthcare setting: validation of the Dutch version of the individual recovery outcomes counter (I.ROC)

Background Measuring progress in treatment is essential for systematic evaluation by service users and their care providers. In low-intensity community mental healthcare, a questionnaire to measure progress in treatment should be aimed at personal recovery and should require little effort to complete. Methods The Individual Recovery Outcome Counter (I.ROC) was translated from English into Dutch, and psychometric evaluations were performed. Data were collected on personal recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale), quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life), and symptoms of mental illness and social functioning (Outcome Questionnaire, OQ-45) for assessing the validity of the I.ROC. Test–retest reliability was evaluated by calculating the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and internal consistency was evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine construct validity. To assess convergent validity, the I.ROC was compared to relevant questionnaires by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients. To evaluate discriminant validity, I.ROC scores of certain subgroups were compared using either a t-test or analysis of variance. Results There were 764 participants in this study who mostly completed more than one I.ROC (total n = 2,863). The I.ROC aimed to measure the concept of personal recovery as a whole, which was confirmed by a factor analysis. The test–retest reliability was satisfactory (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient is 0.856), as were the internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha is 0.921) and the convergent validity. Sensitivity to change was small, but comparable to that of the OQ-45. Conclusions The Dutch version of the I.ROC appears to have satisfactory psychometric properties to warrant its use in daily practice. Discriminant validity and sensitivity to change need further research.

Dimensional Structure and Preliminary Results of the External Constructs of the Schizophrenia Coping Oral Health Profile and Index (SCOOHPI)

The Schizophrenia Coping Oral Health Profile and Index (SCOOHPI) was developed to assess oral health coping strategies in people with schizophrenia. We show that the difficulty and discrimination indices of 18 items, selected for the final version, are acceptable according to the Rasch model, as are the inter-item (0.25) and inter-score (α = 0.85) correlations. This scale can be considered as an index, giving a global score between 0 and 72, with a Likert scale with five response modalities. This is also a profile with the following three dimensions of coping-related oral health, emerging independently of each other: (1) physical well-being strategies (α = 0.72); (2) moral well-being strategies (α = 0.60); (3) access strategies for oral well-being (α = 0.79). The sub-scores, ranging from 0 to 24, specify populations focused on the themes of coping strategies that may be most affected, depending on the subject’s characteristics and their clinical oral health status. The validation study of this scale is still in progress, to evaluate the reproducibility of the results, sensitivity to change, and reliability for other populations of people with schizophrenia.

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7

Purpose This study assesses the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) as an outcome measure in the treatment of common mental disorders (CMD) in primary care settings. Methods 127 participants attending up to 5 sessions of therapy for CMD in primary care self-rated the SWEMWBS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales. SWEMWBS’s construct validity and sensitivity to change was evaluated against the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 across multiple time points in two ways: correlation coefficients were calculated between the measures at each time point; and sensitivity to change over time was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA. Results Score distributions on SWEMWBS, but not PHQ-9 and GAD-7, met criteria for normality. At baseline, 92.9% (118/127) of participants scored above clinical threshold on either PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Correlations between SWEMWBS and PHQ-9 scores were calculated at each respective time point and ranged from 0.601 to 0.793. Correlations between SWEMWBS and GAD-7 scores were calculated similarly and ranged from 0.630 to 0.743. Significant improvements were seen on all three scales over time. Changes in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were curvilinear with greatest improvement between sessions 1 and 2. Change in SWEMWBS was linear over the five sessions. Conclusions This exploratory study suggests that SWEMWBS is acceptable as a CMD outcome measure in primary care settings, both in terms of construct validity and sensitivity to change. Given patient preference for positively over negatively framed measures and statistical advantages of measures which are normally distributed, SWEMWBS could be used as an alternative to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 in monitoring and evaluating CMD treatment.

Detecting change in community participation with the Enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

Objective This study determined the sensitivity to change of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators in people with stroke. Data sources We analyzed data from two studies of participants with stroke: an intervention study and an observational study. Main measures The Enfranchisement Scale contains two subscales: the Importance subscale (feeling valued by and contributing to the community; range: 14–70) and the Control subscale (choice and control: range: 13–64). Data analysis Assessments were administered 6 months apart. We calculated minimum detectable change and minimal clinically important difference. Results The Control subscale analysis included 121 participants with a mean age of 61.2 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 97.9, SD = 24.7). On the Control subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 51.4 (SD = 10.4), and little mean change (1.3) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 11.5). We found a minimum detectable change of 9 and a minimum clinically important difference of 6. The Importance subscale analysis included 116 participants with a mean age of 60.7 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 98.9, SD = 24.5). On the Importance subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 44.1 (SD = 12.7), and again demonstrated little mean change (1.08) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 12.6). We found a minimum detectable change of 11 and a minimum clinically important difference 7. Conclusions The Control subscale required 9 points of change, and the Importance subscale required 11 points of change, to achieve statistically and clinically meaningful changes, suggesting adequate sensitivity to change.

Validity, Reliability and Sensitivity to Change of Three Consumer-Grade Activity Trackers in Controlled and Free-Living Conditions among Older Adults

Wrist-worn consumer-grade activity trackers are popular devices, developed mainly for personal use. This study aimed to explore the validity, reliability and sensitivity to change of movement behaviors metrics from three activity trackers (Polar Vantage M, Garmin Vivoactive 4s and Garmin Vivosport) in controlled and free-living conditions when worn by older adults. Participants (n = 28; 74 ± 5 years) underwent a videotaped laboratory protocol while wearing all three trackers. On a separate occasion, participants (n = 17 for each of the trackers) wore one (randomly assigned) tracker and a research-grade activity monitor ActiGraph wGT3X-BT simultaneously for six consecutive days. Both Garmin trackers showed excellent performance for step counts, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) below 20% and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) above 0.90 (p < 0.05). The MAPE for sleep time was within 10% for all the trackers tested, while it was far beyond 20% for all other movement behaviors metrics. The results suggested that all three trackers could be used for measuring sleep time with a high level of accuracy, and both Garmin trackers could also be used for step counts. All other output metrics should be used with caution. The results provided in this study could be used to guide choice on activity trackers aiming for different purposes—individual use, longitudinal monitoring or in clinical trial setting.

Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of lowering to the ground and rising from the ground evaluation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: one-year longitudinal observation

BACKGROUND: The progressive weakness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) interferes with performance. This study investigated the sensitivity to change and the responsiveness of sitting and standing from the ground in patients with DMD. AIM: The aim was to assess the sensitivity to change and the responsiveness of lowering to/ rising from the ground, in three, six, nine, and twelve month-evaluation intervals and to define the most suitable reevaluation intervals for ambulatory patients with DMD. METHOD: This is an observational, longitudinal study. Recordings of 28 patients performing lowering to/ rising from the ground were analyzed. Sensitivity to change was assessed using effect sizes and standardized response means. Responsiveness was assessed using minimal detectable changes (MDC) and minimal clinically important differences (MCID). RESULTS: In the lowering to the ground, significant sensitivity to change was found in higher than 6 months reassessment intervals. In the rising from the ground, significant sensitivity to change was observed in higher than 9 reassessment intervals. MDC and MCID varied from 1.0 to 1.6 points and from 0.5 to 2.5 seconds when lowering to the ground and from 1.3 to 2.6 points and from 5.0 to 28.0 seconds when rising from the ground. CONCLUSION: Patients should be reassessed after nine months from the lowering to and rising from the ground. Increments of 2.0 points and/or 2.5 seconds (or higher) in the score of lowering to the ground assessment denote clinically relevant changes. Increments of 3 points (or higher) in rising from the ground assessment are clinically relevant.