Efficacy of psychiatric day treatment: Course and outcome of psychiatric disorders in a randomised trial

F.J. Nienhuis*, R Giel, H Kluiter, M Ruphan, D Wiersma

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    29 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The course of the psychopathology and social functioning- in an experimental day-treatment group referred for inpatient psychiatric treatment is compared with that of a control group receiving standard inpatient care. During a follow-up period of 2 years subjects were interviewed three times. The interview comprised information about psychiatric symptoms, psychological functions, psychiatric diagnosis and social-role functioning. Apart from these discrete assessments an effort was made to map episodes of illness throughout the follow-up period. Upon entry the groups did not differ in terms of psychopathology or social functioning. At follow-up both groups had improved significantly with respect to symptomatology. psychological and social functioning. The extent to which the groups improved did not differ significantly regarding pathology, but self-care improved more in the experimental group. The average duration of episodes of illness was similar for the experimental and control group. During the 2-year follow-up patients suffered from a well-defined disorder during an average of 11 months. The fact that approximately 40% of them were still a psychiatric case after 2 years further underscores the severity of their pathology.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)73-80
    Number of pages8
    JournalEuropean Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
    Volume244
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug-1994

    Keywords

    • DAY TREATMENT
    • EFFICACY
    • PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
    • FOLLOW-UP
    • HOSPITALIZATION
    • CARE

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of psychiatric day treatment: Course and outcome of psychiatric disorders in a randomised trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this