Simon A. Naji

Psychometric properties of the BASIS-24© (Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale–Revised) Mental Health Outcome Measure

Objective. Outcome measurement in mental health services is an area of considerable clinical interest and policy priority. This study sought to assess the Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale-24 (BASIS-24©), a brief, patient self-reported measure of psychopathology and functioning, in a UK sample, including establishing population norms for comparative purposes. Methods. Participants were 588 adults recruited from psychiatric inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings; and 630 adults randomly sampled from primary care lists who completed the BASIS-24©, and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) at two time points. Results. BASIS-24© demonstrated adequate reliability (coefficient α values for combined clinical sample across subscales ranged from 0.75 to 0.91), validity and responsiveness to change (effect size for change of the BASIS-24© was 0.56 compared with 0.48 for BSI Global Severity Index). Population norms were established for the general population and adult in-patients (at in-take). The scale proved straightforward to complete across clinical settings. Variable rates of questionnaire distribution across clinical settings highlighted the ongoing challenge of incorporating outcome measures in clinical settings. Conclusion. BASIS-24© is a brief, easily administered, self-complete measure of mental well-being and functioning that adequately meets the requirements of reliability, validity and responsiveness to change required of an outcome measure.

Support for self-management of cardiovascular disease by people with learning disabilities

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the second most common cause of death among people with learning disabilities (LD), and lifestyle has been linked to risk factors. With a shift towards illness prevention and self-management support, it is important to know how people with LD can be involved in this process. OBJECTIVE To elicit the perceptions of people with LD, carers and health professionals regarding supported self-management of CVD. METHODS A qualitative approach used in-depth semi-structured interviews based on vignettes with accompanying pictures. Fourteen people with LD, 11 carers/care staff and 11 health professionals were recruited and interviewed. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse interview data. RESULTS In total, 11 men and 25 women were interviewed. All respondents contributed views of self-management with a wide range of opinions expressed within each participant group. Four key themes encompassed: strategies for self-management; understanding the prerequisites for self-management support; preferred supporters and challenges for self-management implementation. Facilitated service user involvement in self-management decision making was highly valued in all groups. Service users wished for co-ordinated incremental support from across agencies and individuals. CONCLUSIONS People with LD can be effectively consulted regarding health management and their views can inform service development. Promoting joined-up support across health and social care and families will require investment in resources, education and dismantling of professional barriers.

Preliminary validation of a UK-modified version of the BASIS-32

INTRODUCTION: The authors examined the reliability and validity of a UK-modified version of the Behavioral and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32). METHOD: Data from two samples of patients from acute psychiatric inpatient settings were used in the analyses ( n =303, n =92). The factor structure of the scale differed from that of the original BASIS-32. RESULTS: Five factors emerged: (i) depression and anxiety, (ii) lability, (iii) psychosis, (iv) substance misuse and (v) functioning. The full scale of the modified BASIS demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha=0.93). Internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.86 to 0.45. The depression and anxiety subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of unipolar depression from those with other diagnoses (median score=3.11 (Inter quartile range (IQR)=2.67,3.33) versus median score=2.44 (1.67,3.11), P < 0.001). The substance misuse subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of alcohol or opiate dependence from those with other diagnoses (median score=2.33 (2, 3) versus median score=1.33 (0.67, 2), P < 0.001). However, the psychosis subscale did not differentiate patients with a psychotic illness from those with a nonpsychotic diagnosis (median score=1.4 (0.6,2.4) versus median score=1.2, (0.6,2), P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: The total scale appeared to be at least as good as the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in its responsiveness to change. The effect size for the BASIS=1.17 versus 0.91 for the BSI. Convergent validity was partially demonstrated between the modified BASIS and the BSI. ( Int J Psych Clin Pract 2001; 5:41-48)INTRODUCTION: The authors examined the reliability and validity of a UK-modified version of the Behavioral and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32). METHOD: Data from two samples of patients from acute psychiatric inpatient settings were used in the analyses ( n =303, n =92). The factor structure of the scale differed from that of the original BASIS-32. RESULTS: Five factors emerged: (i) depression and anxiety, (ii) lability, (iii) psychosis, (iv) substance misuse and (v) functioning. The full scale of the modified BASIS demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha=0.93). Internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.86 to 0.45. The depression and anxiety subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of unipolar depression from those with other diagnoses (median score=3.11 (Inter quartile range (IQR)=2.67,3.33) versus median score=2.44 (1.67,3.11), P < 0.001). The substance misuse subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of alcohol or opiate dependence from those with othe...INTRODUCTION The authors examined the reliability and validity of a UK-modified version of the Behavioral and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32). METHOD Data from two samples of patients from acute psychiatric inpatient settings were used in the analyses ( n =303, n =92). The factor structure of the scale differed from that of the original BASIS-32. RESULTS Five factors emerged: (i) depression and anxiety, (ii) lability, (iii) psychosis, (iv) substance misuse and (v) functioning. The full scale of the modified BASIS demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha=0.93). Internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.86 to 0.45. The depression and anxiety subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of unipolar depression from those with other diagnoses (median score=3.11 (Inter quartile range (IQR)=2.67,3.33) versus median score=2.44 (1.67,3.11), P < 0.001). The substance misuse subscale discriminated patients with a diagnosis of alcohol or opiate dependence from those with other diagnoses (median score=2.33 (2, 3) versus median score=1.33 (0.67, 2), P < 0.001). However, the psychosis subscale did not differentiate patients with a psychotic illness from those with a nonpsychotic diagnosis (median score=1.4 (0.6,2.4) versus median score=1.2, (0.6,2), P = 0.16). CONCLUSION The total scale appeared to be at least as good as the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in its responsiveness to change. The effect size for the BASIS=1.17 versus 0.91 for the BSI. Convergent validity was partially demonstrated between the modified BASIS and the BSI. ( Int J Psych Clin Pract 2001; 5:41-48).