Wennström Erik, Wiesel Frits-Axel
Department of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, Uppsala University Hospital, 75017 Uppsala, Sweden.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006 Sep;41(9):728-33. doi: 10.1007/s00127-006-0084-9. Epub 2006 Jun 14.
Subsidiary findings in several studies indicate that the standard summary scores (total number of needs, met needs and unmet needs) of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) may conceal important differences among patient populations at the item level of the measure. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in need and need status at the item level are adequately reflected by changes in the summary scores.
In a longitudinal design assessments of need in 1997 and 2003 of 192 outpatients (mean age 45.4 years, 78.1% psychotic disorders) in routine mental health care were compared.
None of the summary scores changed between 1997 and 2003. This result, however, was contradicted by significant changes in needs at the item level.
The summary scores conceal changes in need on the underlying items and thus is recommended not to be used as dependent measures when comparisons among populations or between points in time are of interest.
多项研究的附属结果表明，坎伯韦尔需求评估量表（CAN）的标准汇总分数（需求总数、已满足的需求和未满足的需求）可能在该量表的项目层面掩盖了不同患者群体之间的重要差异。本研究的目的是调查项目层面需求和需求状态的变化是否能通过汇总分数的变化得到充分反映。
采用纵向设计，比较了1997年和2003年对192名接受常规精神卫生保健的门诊患者（平均年龄45.4岁，78.1%为精神障碍患者）的需求评估情况。
1997年至2003年期间，汇总分数均未发生变化。然而，这一结果与项目层面需求的显著变化相矛盾。
汇总分数掩盖了潜在项目上需求的变化，因此，当关注不同人群之间或不同时间点之间的比较时，建议不要将其用作因变量指标。
