| Title |
The utility of novel outcome measures in a naturalistic evaluation of schizophrenia treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s151174 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tamara Tompsett, Kate Masters, Parastou Donyai |
| Abstract |
A number of naturalistic studies have investigated paliperidone palmitate (PP) using proxy measures of effectiveness. An unexplored option is to examine the utility of the mental health clustering tool (MHCT), which is used in UK clinical practice to measure patient well-being and is linked to allocation of resources. This study evaluated the effectiveness of PP using the MHCT, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), and, for comparison, more conventional outcome measures. This was a naturalistic, 1-year evaluation of PP (n=50) in schizophrenia as well as a comparator antipsychotic drugs group. Changes in the MHCT cluster-score cost ranking and four HoNOS-derived factors were analyzed using a mixed-model statistical analysis to explore the utility of these measures. At 1 year, 30 patients (60%) continued PP treatment. The mean "cluster-score cost ranking" (-1.5) and Severe Disturbance factor scores (-1.1) were significantly lower (p-value [adjusted] =0.0003,p-value [adjusted] =0.002, respectively) after 1 year of antipsychotic treatment but no differences were found between PP and the comparator antipsychotic drugs group. Patients prescribed PP were 1.8 times (95% CI 1.1-3.1) more likely to be discharged from hospital than those in the comparator antipsychotic drugs group. PP's continuation rate after 1 year made the study similar to the existing evaluations, and it was possible to prospectively evaluate antipsychotic effectiveness using the novel measures although these did not discriminate between PP and the comparator group. The investigation illustrates that in principle these novel measures are meaningful in naturalistic study designs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,262
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,394
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#18
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.