Department of Psychiatric Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Nursing, School of Health and Social Services, Saitama Prefectural University, 820 Sannomiya, Koshigaya-Shi, Saitama, 343-8540, Japan.
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Nov 30;24(1):861. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06292-z.
Over the past half-century, numerous scales have been designed to quantify outcomes in people with severe mental health disorders. However, little is known about the views of people diagnosed with schizophrenia on individual outcome scales, particularly outside of European countries.
We conducted a qualitative study to examine the perspectives of people with schizophrenia on multiple scales in Japan.
Eleven participants took part in focus group interviews. Five had extensive experience as mental health peer supporters; the others had no such experience. To address potential power imbalances and facilitate dynamic discourse, participants were intentionally divided into two groups on the basis of peer support experience, and two simultaneous two-hour focus group interviews were conducted in separate rooms. The participants reviewed 12 clinical and patient-reported outcome measures and discussed their views on each measure. Interview data for each group were combined prior to analysis and qualitatively analyzed by four researchers using a thematic analysis approach.
The average age of the participants was 42.7 years (SD = 8.3), and six were male. On average, the participants had been living with schizophrenia for 22.2 years (SD = 11.1). After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified, each containing two to seven subthemes: 1) validity and format of the scale construct, 2) factors affecting the accuracy of responses, 3) plain language and familiar words in Japanese culture, 4) psychological impact on the respondents, and 5) containing important items in everyday life.
The participants provided both favorable and unfavorable feedback on each scale. When implementing research utilizing clinical outcome scales and patient-reported outcome measures, researchers should exercise caution considering the potential emotional impact on respondents. Furthermore, scale development should take into account the cultural background and psychological burden experienced by the respondents.
在过去的半个世纪中,已经设计了许多量表来量化严重精神健康障碍患者的结局。然而,人们对精神分裂症患者对个体结局量表的看法知之甚少,尤其是在欧洲国家之外。
我们进行了一项定性研究,以检查日本精神分裂症患者对多种量表的看法。
11 名参与者参加了焦点小组访谈。其中 5 人有丰富的心理健康同伴支持经验;其他人则没有。为了解决潜在的权力失衡问题,并促进动态对话,我们根据同伴支持经验将参与者有意分为两组,并在两个单独的房间中同时进行了两个两小时的焦点小组访谈。参与者审查了 12 种临床和患者报告的结局测量方法,并讨论了他们对每种测量方法的看法。在分析之前,将每个小组的访谈数据合并,并由四名研究人员使用主题分析方法进行定性分析。
参与者的平均年龄为 42.7 岁(SD=8.3),6 名男性。参与者平均患有精神分裂症 22.2 年(SD=11.1)。分析访谈数据后,确定了以下五个主题,每个主题包含两个到七个子主题:1)量表结构的有效性和格式,2)影响响应准确性的因素,3)日本文化中通俗易懂的语言和熟悉的词汇,4)对受访者的心理影响,5)包含日常生活中的重要项目。
参与者对每种量表都提供了有利和不利的反馈。在利用临床结局量表和患者报告结局测量进行研究时,研究人员应考虑到对受访者的潜在情绪影响,谨慎行事。此外,量表的制定应考虑到受访者的文化背景和心理负担。