Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Cerimele, Fortney); U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Center of Innovation, Seattle (Fortney); Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Goldberg); Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, and Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Miller); M. B. Ketchum Memorial Library, Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California (Gabrielson).
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 May 1;70(5):396-408. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201800383. Epub 2019 Feb 5.
Utilization of measurement-based care (MBC) for bipolar disorders is limited, in part because of uncertainty regarding the utility of available measures. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature on patient-reported and clinician-observed measures of symptoms of bipolar disorder and the potential use of these measures in MBC.
A systematic review of multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and other gray literature) was conducted in June 2017 to identify validated measures. Data on the psychometric properties of each measure were extracted and used to assess the measure's clinical utility on the basis of established guidelines.
Twenty-eight unique measures were identified in 39 studies, including four patient-reported and six clinician-observed measures assessing manic symptoms, three patient-reported and five clinician-observed measures of depressive symptoms, and six patient-reported and four clinician-observed measures of both symptom types. Patient-reported measures with the highest clinical utility included the Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale for assessment of manic symptoms, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR) (depressive symptoms), and the Internal State Scale (both types). Highly rated clinician (C)-observed scales were the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (mania), the QIDS-C (depressive symptoms), and the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (both types).
Suitable choices are available for MBC of bipolar disorders. The choice of a measure could be informed by clinical utility score and may also depend on how clinicians or practices weigh each category of the clinical utility scale and on the clinical setting and presenting problem.
双相情感障碍的基于测量的护理(MBC)的应用受到限制,部分原因是对现有测量工具的实用性存在不确定性。本研究旨在综合双相情感障碍症状的患者报告和临床医生观察的测量方法,并探讨这些方法在 MBC 中的潜在应用。
我们于 2017 年 6 月对多个数据库(PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、Cochrane 图书馆和其他灰色文献)进行了系统评价,以确定已验证的测量工具。提取了每个测量工具的心理测量学特性数据,并根据既定指南评估该测量工具的临床实用性。
在 39 项研究中确定了 28 种独特的测量工具,包括 4 种用于评估躁狂症状的患者报告和 6 种临床医生观察的测量工具、3 种用于评估抑郁症状的患者报告和 5 种临床医生观察的测量工具,以及 6 种用于评估两种症状类型的患者报告和 4 种临床医生观察的测量工具。具有最高临床实用性的患者报告测量工具包括用于评估躁狂症状的 Altman 自我评定躁狂量表、快速抑郁症状清单自评量表(QIDS-SR)(抑郁症状)和内部状态量表(两种症状类型)。临床医生(C)观察评分较高的量表是贝克-拉斐尔森躁狂评定量表(躁狂)、QIDS-C(抑郁症状)和双相情感障碍症状量表(两种症状类型)。
有适合于双相情感障碍 MBC 的选择。可以根据临床实用性评分来选择测量工具,也可能取决于临床医生或实践如何权衡临床实用性评分的每个类别,以及临床环境和表现问题。