Outcome assessment of the VADO approach in psychiatric rehabilitation: a partially randomised multicentric trial

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Pioli, Rosaria en
dc.contributor.author Vittorielli, Michela en
dc.contributor.author Gigantesco, Antonella en
dc.contributor.author Rossi, Giuseppe en
dc.contributor.author Basso, Luigi en
dc.contributor.author Caprioli, Chiara en
dc.contributor.author Buizza, Chiara en
dc.contributor.author Corradi, Angela en
dc.contributor.author Mirabella, Fiorino en
dc.contributor.author Morosini, Pierluigi en
dc.contributor.author Falloon, Ian en
dc.date.accessioned 2008-09-25T03:05:33Z en
dc.date.available 2008-09-25T03:05:33Z en
dc.date.issued 2006 en
dc.identifier.citation Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health 2(1), 5. 2006 en
dc.identifier.issn 1745-0179 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/3049 en
dc.description An open access copy of this article is available and complies with the copyright holder/publisher conditions. en
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND:Recent studies on representative samples of psychiatric services have shown that low proportions of cases received effective rehabilitation interventions. The following are likely to be the most important causes: the scarcity of mental health workers trained in social and work skills strategies and the absence of a structured framework to formulate rehabilitation practices.The aim of this study was to assess if a specific structured planning and evaluation manual, called VADO (Valutazione delle Abilità e Definizione degli Obiettivi in english: Skills Assessment and Definition of Goals), is more effective than routine interventions in reducing disability in patients with schizophrenia.METHOD:Each of 10 mental health services were invited to recruit 10 patients with a schizophrenic disorder. Altogether 98 patients were recruited. Of these, 62 patients were randomly allocated to the intervention/experimental or a control group. The remaining group of 36 patients was not randomised and it was considered as a parallel effectiveness study. Assessment measures at the beginning of the study and at the one-year follow-up included the FPS scale of social functioning and the BPRS 4.0. Between group (VADO vs. Routine) and time effects were examined with ANOVA, Chi-square or Fisher exact. Clinical "improvement" was defined as an increase of at least ten points on the FPS or a decrease of at least 20% on BPRS scores.RESULTS:31 of the 62 randomized patients received the experimental interventions, while 31 followed the routine ones. At follow-up, the experimental group showed statistically and clinically greater improvements in psychopathology and social functioning.Better outcomes of both social functioning and symptom severity were observed in non randomised patients (parallel effectiveness study).CONCLUSION:The results suggest that setting personalised and measurable objectives, as recommended by the manual, can improve the outcome of rehabilitation of severe mental disorders. Better outcomes in the parallel effectiveness study could be attributed to the greater confidence and enthusiasm of staff in centres where the VADO approach originated. en
dc.publisher BioMed Central Ltd. en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Details obtained from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1745-0179/ en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ en
dc.source.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-2-5 en
dc.title Outcome assessment of the VADO approach in psychiatric rehabilitation: a partially randomised multicentric trial en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.subject.marsden Fields of Research::320000 Medical and Health Sciences en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/1745-0179-2-5 en
pubs.issue 1 en
pubs.begin-page 5 en
pubs.volume 2 en
dc.description.version VoR - Version of Record en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: Pioli et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess en

Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace