Repository logo
 
Publication

The ECLW Collaborative study II: patient registration form (PRF) instrument, training and reliability. European Consultation/Liaison Work group.

dc.contributor.authorLobo, A
dc.contributor.authorHuyse, F
dc.contributor.authorHerzog, T
dc.contributor.authorMalt, U
dc.contributor.authorOpmeer, B
dc.contributor.authorECLW Coordination Center
dc.contributor.authorCardoso, G
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T09:33:55Z
dc.date.available2012-08-08T09:33:55Z
dc.date.issued1996
dc.description.abstractThis paper describes the development and testing of the Patient Registration Form (PRF), a standardized instrument for the description of patients seen by consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrists and psychosomatists in general hospitals, the referral patterns, the C-L interventions and their outcomes. The PRF study is part of a large multi-centre. European investigation on the effectiveness of mental health service delivery, conducted by the European C-L Workgroup for General Hospital Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (ECLW) and performed in the framework of the of the E.C. 4th Medical and Health Research Program. The final version of the PRF consists of 68 items. It was developed by the Program Management Group (PMG) and National Coordinators (NC) after long preparatory studies to assure both face and content validity and pilot testing. Two hundred and twenty consultants, who required 40 hours of training and came from 14 different European countries and 90 different sites, participated in the final reliability study. The PRF was tested in 13 written case histories. A "gold standard' for the correct answers in each item was decided by "consensus ratings' of the PMG and a subsequent 80% agreement by the NCs. A high standard (average kappa (k) > or = 0.70; at least 2/3 of the PRF items, kappa > or = 0.70) was required for the rater to be considered as "reliable' (RR). The consultants considered the PRF both "feasible' and 93.2% of them fulfilled the RR criteria. The calculated rater-"gold standard' reliability was satisfactory: only four PRF items were identified with low agreement coefficients and no biases were observed cross-nationally in the ratings. Given the implications of misclassification for evaluating C-L effectiveness and services, these results are important and the achievement unprecedented.por
dc.identifier.citationJ Psychosom Res. 1996 Feb; 40(2):143-56.por
dc.identifier.issn0022-3999
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.10/629
dc.language.isoengpor
dc.peerreviewedyespor
dc.publisherElsevierpor
dc.subjectPerturbações psicofisiológicaspor
dc.subjectPerturbações mentaispor
dc.subjectRegistos clínicospor
dc.subjectMedicina psicossomáticapor
dc.subjectEuropapor
dc.subjectConsultation-liaison psychiatrypor
dc.subjectEuropean hospitalspor
dc.subjectMedical recordspor
dc.subjectPsiquiatria de ligação
dc.titleThe ECLW Collaborative study II: patient registration form (PRF) instrument, training and reliability. European Consultation/Liaison Work group.por
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.conferencePlaceAmsterdampor
oaire.citation.endPage156por
oaire.citation.startPage143por
oaire.citation.titleJournal of Psychosomatic Researchpor
oaire.citation.volume40por
rcaap.rightsopenAccesspor
rcaap.typearticlepor

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
J Psychosom Res. 1996 Feb, 40(2) 143-56.pdf
Size:
868.59 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: