We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The majority of studies support modern assertive health service models. However, the evidence is limited for parts of continental Europe, as well as for the pharmacological adherence outcome parameter.
Method
We conducted a quasi-experimental controlled trial including adult patients with a schizophreniform disorder and a maximum of 60 points on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Interventions (n = 176) and controls (TAU, n = 142) were assessed every six-month within one year in 17 study practices in rural areas. Mental and functional state were rated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the GAF. Functional limitations and pharmacological adherence were patient-rated using the WHO-Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS–II) and the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS). We computed multilevel mixed models.
Results
The GAF and BPRS of both groups improved significantly, yet the increase in the intervention group was significantly higher. In contrast, patient-rated variables – WHODAS–II and MARS – neither showed a stable temporal improvement nor a difference between groups.
Conclusion
Our findings only partly support the investigated AO intervention, because of conflicting results between clinician- and patient-ratings. Accordingly, the benefits of AO need to be further evaluated.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.