XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire

Background. In recent years the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) has been extensively used as a short screening instrument, producing results that are comparable to longer versions of the GHQ.Methods. The validity of the GHQ-12 was compared with the GHQ-28 in a World Health Organization study of psychological disorders in general health care. Results are presented for 5438 patients interviewed in 15 centres using the primary care version of the Composite International Diagnostic Instrument, or CIDI-PC.Results. Results were uniformly good, with the average area under the ROC curve 88, range from 83 to 95. Minor variations in the criteria used for defining a case made little difference to the validity of the GHQ, and complex scoring methods offered no advantages over simpler ones. The GHQ was translated into 10 other languages for the purposes of this study, and validity coefficients were almost as high as in the original language. There was no tendency for the GHQ to work less efficiently in developing countries. Finally gender, age and educational level are shown to have no significant effect on the validity of the GHQ.Conclusions. If investigators wish to use a screening instrument as a case detector, the shorter GHQ is remarkably robust and works as well as the longer instrument. The latter should only be preferred if there is an interest in the scaled scores provided in addition to the total score.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0033291796004242

The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(98)01085-X.pdf

Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses

Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.

Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions

A validity study of the Self-Report Questionnaire (20 item version, Harding et al, 1980) against the criterion of a standardised psychiatric interview (Goldberg et al, 1970) was carried out at three primary care clinics in Sao Paulo; 875 patients filled in the SRQ-20 questionnaires and a subsample of 260 was interviewed by the psychiatrist. The SRQ-20 was shown to be a feasible screening instrument for psycho-emotional disturbance in these settings. Sensitivity was 83% and specificity 80%, and the questionnaire was a good indicator of morbidity. A correlation was found between questionnaire total scores and independent clinical judgment (r = +0.70). A sex difference in the validity coefficients is described.

A validity study of a psychiatric screening questionnaire (SRQ-20) in primary care in the city of Sao Paulo.

Background
People with schizophrenia from families that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over involvement, have more frequent relapses than people with similar problems from families that tend to be less expressive of emotions. Forms of psychosocial intervention, designed to reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families, are now widely used.

Objectives
To estimate the effects of family psychosocial interventions in community settings for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions compared with standard care.

Search methods
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008).

Selection criteria
We selected randomised or quasi-randomised studies focusing primarily on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder that compared community-orientated family-based psychosocial intervention with standard care.

Data collection and analysis
We independently extracted data and calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary data, and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD).

Main results
This 2009-10 update adds 21 additional studies, with a total of 53 randomised controlled trials included. Family intervention may decrease the frequency of relapse (n = 2981, 32 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.5 to 0.6, NNT 7 CI 6 to 8), although some small but negative studies might not have been identified by the search. Family intervention may also reduce hospital admission (n = 481, 8 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.6 to 1.0, NNT 8 CI 6 to 13) and encourage compliance with medication (n = 695, 10 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 6 CI 5 to 9) but it does not obviously affect the tendency of individuals/families to leave care (n = 733, 10 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.5 to 1.0). Family intervention also seems to improve general social impairment and the levels of expressed emotion within the family. We did not find data to suggest that family intervention either prevents or promotes suicide.

Authors' conclusions
Family intervention may reduce the number of relapse events and hospitalisations and would therefore be of interest to people with schizophrenia, clinicians and policy makers. However, the treatment effects of these trials may be overestimated due to the poor methodological quality. Further data from trials that describe the methods of randomisation, test the blindness of the study evaluators, and implement the CONSORT guidelines would enable greater confidence in these findings.

Family intervention for schizophrenia

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(07)61241-0.pdf

Mental health systems in countries: where are we now?

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (Goldberg, 1972) and the Self Report Questionnaire (SRQ-20) (Harding et al. 1980) were simultaneously validated against the criterion of the Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS) (Goldberg et al. 1970) in three primary care clinics in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. A comparison between the two screening instruments was carried out. The product-moment correlation between the two sets of scores was +0.72, and the validation coefficients for the GHQ-12 and the SRQ-20 were respectively: sensitivity 85% and 83%; specificity 79% and 80%; overall misclassification rate 18% and 19%. The two screening instruments were further compared by the application of Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and, again, were found to be very similar in performance. The area under the ROC curve was 0.87 for the GHQ and 0.90 for the SRQ-20 (Z = 0.92, NS). Both psychiatric screening instruments were therefore found to be acceptably valid when assessed against the CIS in three primary care settings in Brazil. The application of ROC analysis to studies of this kind was feasible and straightforward. It was found to be superior to the conventional method of presentation of validity data. It is recommended that the application of ROC analysis to psychiatric screening studies be further utilized and explored.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0033291700031500

A comparison of the validity of two psychiatric screening questionnaires (GHQ-12 and SRQ-20) in Brazil, using Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Jair de Jesus Mari

Papers

A validity study of a psychiatric screening questionnaire (SRQ-20) in primary care in the city of Sao Paulo.

Family intervention for schizophrenia

Mental health systems in countries: where are we now?

A comparison of the validity of two psychiatric screening questionnaires (GHQ-12 and SRQ-20) in Brazil, using Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Validaçao da versao brasileira do "Child Behavior Checklist" (CBCL) (Invent rio de Comportamentos da Infância e Adolescência): dados preliminares