The Camberwell Assessment of Need: The Validity and Reliability of an Instrument to Assess the Needs of People with Severe Mental Illness

Phelan, Michael; Slade, Mike; Thornicroft, Graham; Dunn, Graham; Holloway, Frank; Wykes, Til; Strathdee, Geraldine; Loftus, Linda; McCrone, Paul; Hayward, Peter

doi:10.1192/bjp.167.5.589

Cited by 734 publications

(596 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

551

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This large, multi-site project, investigating the Collaborative Recovery Model (Oades et al, 2005), involved four government and five non-government organisations across the eastern states of Australia. Inclusion criteria for participants were that they were aged 18 years or over, had a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder of at least six months duration and had high support needs as assessed by the CANSAS (Phelan et al, 1995). Case managers recruited participants from their current case load.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Andresen

Caputi

Oades

2010

Psychiatry Research

177

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an international call for mental health services to become recovery-oriented, and also to use evidence based practices. Addressing this call requires recovery-oriented measurement of outcomes and service evaluation.Mental health consumers view recovery as leading as meaningful life, and have criticised traditional clinical measures for being too disability-oriented. This study compares three measures of consumer-defined recovery fromenduring mental illness: the Recovery Assessment Scale, the Mental Health Recovery Measure and the Self-Identified Stage of Recovery, with four conventional clinical measures. Correlational analyses supported the convergent validity of the recovery measures, although certain subscaleswere unrelated to each other. More importantly, little relationship was found between consumer-defined recovery and the clinical measures. Analyses of variance revealed that scores on the recovery measures increased across self-identified stage of recovery, but scores onmost clinicalmeasures did not improve consistently across stage of recovery. The findings demonstrate the qualitative difference between the two types of measures, supporting the claim by consumers that clinical measures do not assess important aspects of recovery. There is a need for further research and refinement of recovery measurement, including assessment of stages of recovery, with the aimof including such measures as an adjunct in routine clinical assessment, service evaluation and research. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Andresen

Caputi

Oades

2010

Psychiatry Research

177

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Attempts to popularise a shortened and simplified derivative were made (Phelan et al, 1995) but needs assessment in this form has remained a research exercise. Despite its conceptual and metric superiority over the MHCT this reputation and the demands of training have hindered its adoption as a basis for PbR in mental health service settings.…”

Section: The Mrc Needs For Care Assessment Schedulementioning

confidence: 99%

Delaying the implementation of Payment by Results in mental health: the application of standardisation

Wang

Shaw

Middleton

2015

Mental Health Review Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Design/methodology/approach -PbR relies upon "standardisation" of conditions and treatments. This depends upon a scheme of classification that can realistically predict resources required to execute treatment of any one case. Plans to fund NHS mental health services on the basis of tariffs derived in this way have been delayed, and a key reason is the lack of high-quality data. This would require effective "standardisation-to the-average" of both a system of classification and a repertoire of costed treatment pathways. This paper investigated the delay implementation by exploring the difficulties in applying standardisation principles to service provision and tariff calculation.Findings -The paper identified the fundamental difficulty with PbR's implementation in applying "standardisation" to practice. This is defining the mental disorder that the patient is suffering and designing care pathways at clinical level considering the balance between practical applicability and conceptual/constructional validity. This is necessary to enable the calculation of a national tariff. The conceptual flaws of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale led to the constructional shortcomings which compromised the credibility and validity of Mental Health Clustering Tool regarding making accurate classification in a standardised way. The validity and credibility of calculating a national tariff thus became contentious on the basis of this inaccurate clinical classification system. Originality/value -This paper explored the driving factors of delay in implementing PbR in mental health through connecting the recent reform with the fundamental assumptions of "standardisation-to the-average", which provided another perspective to illustrate the current obstacles.

show abstract

“…One clinician-rated and patient-rated measure was used. The Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS) is a measure of unmet need in 22 health and social domains with scores ranging from 0 (no unmet needs) to 22 (27).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice

Clarke

Puschner

Jordan

et al. 2014

Acta Psychiatr Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mike (2015) Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 131 (5). pp. 369-378. ISSN 1600-0447Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34260/1/AFD%20APS%20CEDAR%20Empowerment %20and%20satisfaction.pdf Copyright and reuse:The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (a) using their preferred decision-making style and (b) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. MethodAs part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. ResultsPatients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR=2.47, p=0.005, 95%CI 1.32 to 4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR=3.17, p=0.003, 95%CI 1.48 to 6.82). ConclusionMore active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction. KeywordsDecision Making, Mental Health 3. The extent to which the decision topic impacted on preference and agreement is unknown.4

show abstract

The Camberwell Assessment of Need: The Validity and Reliability of an Instrument to Assess the Needs of People with Severe Mental Illness

Abstract: The study suggests that the CAN is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the needs of people with severe mental illness. It is easily learnt by staff from a range of professional backgrounds, and a complete assessment took, on average, around 25 minutes.

Cited by 734 publications

References 10 publications

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Delaying the implementation of Payment by Results in mental health: the application of standardisation

Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About