Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:05:07.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS)

Research and development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2018

J. K. Wing ,
A. S. Beevor ,
R. H. Curtis ,
S. G. B. Park ,
J. Hadden  and
A. Burns
J. K. Wing*
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, 11 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1X 7EE
A. S. Beevor
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, 11 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1X 7EE
R. H. Curtis
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, 11 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1X 7EE
S. G. B. Park
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Duncan Macmillan House, Porchester Road, Nottingham
J. Hadden
Affiliation:
University of South Manchester, Withington, Manchester M20 9BX
A. Burns
Affiliation:
University of South Manchester, Withington, Manchester M20 9BX
*
Professor J. K. Wing, College Research Unit, 11 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1X 7EE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

An instrument was required to quantify and thus potentially measure progress towards a Health of the Nation target, set by the Department of Health, “to improve significantly the health and social functioning of mentally ill people”

Method

A first draft was created in consultation with experts and on the basis of literature review. This version was improved during four stages of testing: two preliminary stages, a large field trial involving 2706 patients (rated by 492 clinicians) and tests of the final Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), which included an independent study (n=197) of reliability and relationship to other instruments.

Results

The resulting 12-item instrument is simple to use, covers clinical problems and social functioning with reasonable adequacy, has been generally acceptable to clinicians who have used it, is sensitive to change or the lack of it, showed good reliability in independent trials and compared reasonably well with equivalent items in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales and Role Functioning Scales.

Conclusions

The key test for HoNOS is that clinicians should want to use it for their own purposes. In general, it has passed that test. A further possibility, that HoNOS data collected routinely as part of a minimum data set, for example for the Care Programme Approach, could also be useful in anonymised and aggregated form for public health purposes, is therefore testable but has not yet been tested.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 172 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 11 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, G. & Morris-Yates, A. (1994) Ethical implications of the electronic storage of medical records. In Computers in Mental Health, Vol. I (eds Andrews, G., Ustun, T. B., Dilling, H., et al), pp. 129–135. St Andrews: Churchill Livingstone/WHO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1992) Health of the Nation. White Paper. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1993) Key Area Handbook. Mental Health. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Glover, G. (1995a) The public health perspective. In Measurement for Mental Health, Chapter 6 (ed Wing, J. K.). London: College Research Unit.Google Scholar
Glover, G. (1995b) Mental health informatics and the rhythm of community care. British Medical Journal, 311, 1038–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, S. H., Sewell, D. R., Cooley, E. L., et al (1993) Assessing levels of adaptive functioning: the Role Functioning Scale. Community Mental Health Journal, 29, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarman, B. & Hirsch, S. (1992) Statistical models to predict district psychiatric morbidity. In Measuring Mental Health Needs (eds Thornicroft, G., Brewin, C. R. & Wing, J. K.), pp. 62–80. London: Gaskell.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lelliot, P. (1994) Making clinical informatics work. Don't forget the doctor is the customer. British Medical Journal, 308, 802–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelliot, P. (1995) Mental health information systems. Measurement for Mental Health. Contributions from the College Research Unit, chapter 8. (ed. Wing, J. K.). London: College Research Unit.Google Scholar
Overall, J. E. & Gorham, D. R. (1962) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, J., Green, M. F., Shaner, A., et al (1993) Training and quality assurance with the BPRS. ‘The drift busters’. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 3, 221–244.Google Scholar
Wing, J. K., Curtis, R. H. & Beevor, A. S. (1996) HoNOS. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales. Report on research and development. London: College Research Unit.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.