17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What side effects are problematic for patients prescribed antipsychotic medication? The Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure for antipsychotic medication

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Capturing service users’ perspectives can highlight additional and different concerns to those of clinicians, but there are no up to date, self-report psychometrically sound measures of side effects of antipsychotic medications.

          Aim

          To develop a psychometrically sound measure to identify antipsychotic side effects important to service users, the Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure.

          Method

          An initial item bank was subjected to a Delphi exercise ( n = 9) with psychiatrists and pharmacists, followed by service user focus groups and expert panels ( n = 15) to determine item relevance and language. Feasibility and comprehensive psychometric properties were established in two samples (N43 and N50). We investigated whether we could predict the three most important side effects for individuals from their frequency, severity and life impact.

          Results

          MSE is a 53-item measure with good reliability and validity. Poorer mental and physical health, but not psychotic symptoms, was related to side-effect burden. Seventy-nine percent of items were chosen as one of the three most important effects. Severity, impact and distress only predicted ‘putting on weight’ which was more distressing, more severe and had more life impact in those for whom it was most important.

          Conclusions

          MSE is a self-report questionnaire that identifies reliably the side-effect burden as experienced by patients. Identifying key side effects important to patients can act as a starting point for joint decision making on the type and the dose of medication.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

          Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users.

            Little is known about service users' views of measures used to evaluate treatments in mental health. To identify the views of people with psychosis and affective disorder about the relevance and acceptability of commonly used outcome measures. Twenty-four widely used outcome measures were presented to expert groups of service users. Nominal group methods were used to develop consensus about the appropriateness of each measure. Comments made by service users about how outcomes should be assessed were also recorded. Group members expressed concern about the ability of some outcome measures to capture their experiences. Patient-rated measures were assessed as more relevant and appropriate than staff-rated measures, and the need to examine negative as well as the positive effects of treatments was emphasised. Specific concerns were raised about some widely used measures including the Global Assessment of Functioning and the European Quality of Life scale. We consider it essential that service users' views are taken into account when selecting measures to evaluate treatment outcomes. Providing insight into views of users of mental health services, our findings serve as a starting point for discussion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research.

              The paper aims to develop a model of translational research in which service user and other stakeholder involvement are central to each phase. 'Translational' is the current medical buzzword: translational research has been termed 'bench to bedside' research and promises to fast-track biomedical advances in the service of patient benefit. Models usually conceive of translational research as a 'pipeline' that is divided into phases: the early phase is characterized as the province of basic scientists and laboratory-based clinical researchers; the later phases focus on the implementation, dissemination and diffusion of health applications. If service user involvement is mentioned, it is usually restricted to these later phases. The paper critically reviews existing literature on translational research and medicine. The authors develop a theoretical argument that addresses why a reconceptualization of translational research is required on scientific, ethical and pragmatic grounds. The authors reconceptualize the model of translational research as an interlocking loop rather than as a pipeline, one in which service user and other stakeholder involvement feed into each of its elements. The authors demonstrate that for the 'interlocking loop' model of translational research to be materialized in practice will require changes in how health research is structured and organized. The authors demonstrate the scientific, ethical and pragmatic benefits of involving service users in every phase of translational research. The authors' reconceptualized model of translational research contributes to theoretical and policy debates regarding both translational research and service user involvement. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychol Med
                Psychol Med
                PSM
                Psychological Medicine
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                0033-2917
                1469-8978
                October 2017
                19 April 2017
                : 47
                : 13
                : 2369-2378
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Psychology Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                [2 ]South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London UK
                [3 ]NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                [4 ]Chief Pharmacist, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Dartford, UK
                [5 ]Centre for Psychiatry, Imperial College London , London, UK
                [6 ]Pharmacy and Pathology, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [7 ]Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London , London, UK
                [8 ]Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool , UK
                [9 ]Department for Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                [10 ]Health Service & Population Research, Centre for Implementation Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                [11 ]Psychometrics and Measurement Lab, Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Address for correspondence: T. Wykes, Psychology Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London , London, UKand South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London UK. (Email: til.wykes@ 123456kcl.ac.uk )
                [†]

                Joint last authors.

                Article
                S0033291717000903 00090
                10.1017/S0033291717000903
                5820531
                28420450
                1a5f240c-4976-448f-a3e2-55e06af1d655
                © Cambridge University Press 2017

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 06 December 2016
                : 15 March 2017
                : 16 March 2017
                Page count
                Tables: 3, References: 51, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                medication side effects,self report,participatory methods,prom,schizophrenia

                Comments

                Comment on this article