A review of instruments developed to measure outcomes for carers of people with mental health problems

Objective: Community-based care for mental disorders places considerable burden on families and carers. Measuring their experiences has become a priority, but there is no consensus on appropriate instruments. We aimed to review instruments carers consider relevant to their needs and assess evidence for their use. Method: A literature search was conducted for outcome measures used with mental health carers. Identified instruments were assessed for their relevance to the outcomes identified by carers and their psychometric properties. Results: Three hundred and ninety two published articles referring to 241 outcome measures were identified, 64 of which were eligible for review (used in three or more studies). Twenty-six instruments had good psychometric properties; they measured (i) carers' well-being, (ii) the experience of caregiving and (iii) carers' needs for professional support. Conclusion: Measures exist which have been used to assess the most salient aspects of carer outcome in mental health. All require further work to establish their psychometric properties fully.

In-situ comparison of the NOy instruments flown in MOZAIC and SPURT

Two aircraft instruments for the measurement of total odd nitrogen (NOy) were compared side by side aboard a Learjet A35 in April 2003 during a campaign of the AFO2000 project SPURT (Spurengastransport in der Tropopausenregion). The instruments albeit employing the same measurement principle (gold converter and chemiluminescence) had different inlet configurations. The ECO-Physics instrument operated by ETH-Zürich in SPURT had the gold converter mounted outside the aircraft, whereas the instrument operated by FZ-Jülich in the European project MOZAIC III (Measurements of ozone, water vapour, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides aboard Airbus A340 in-service aircraft) employed a Rosemount probe with 80 cm of FEP-tubing connecting the inlet to the gold converter. The NOy concentrations during the flight ranged between 0.3 and 3 ppb. The two data sets were compared in a blind fashion and each team followed its normal operating procedures. On average, the measurements agreed within 7%, i.e. within the combined uncertainty of the two instruments. This puts an upper limit on potential losses of HNO3 in the Rosemount inlet of the MOZAIC instrument. Larger transient deviations were observed during periods after calibrations and when the aircraft entered the stratosphere. The time lag of the MOZAIC instrument observed in these instances is in accordance with the time constant of the MOZAIC inlet line determined in the laboratory for HNO3.

The SPARC Data Initiative: Comparison of upper troposphere/lower stratosphere ozone climatologies from limb-viewing instruments and the nadir-viewing Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer

We present the first comprehensive intercomparison of currently available satellite ozone climatologies in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) (300–70 hPa) as part of the Stratosphere-troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC) Data Initiative. The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) instrument is the only nadir-viewing instrument in this initiative, as well as the only instrument with a focus on tropospheric composition. We apply the TES observational operator to ozone climatologies from the more highly vertically resolved limb-viewing instruments. This minimizes the impact of differences in vertical resolution among the instruments and allows identification of systematic differences in the large-scale structure and variability of UTLS ozone. We find that the climatologies from most of the limb-viewing instruments show positive differences (ranging from 5 to 75%) with respect to TES in the tropical UTLS, and comparison to a “zonal mean” ozonesonde climatology indicates that these differences likely represent a positive bias for p ≤ 100 hPa. In the extratropics, there is good agreement among the climatologies regarding the timing and magnitude of the ozone seasonal cycle (differences in the peak-to-peak amplitude of <15%) when the TES observational operator is applied, as well as very consistent midlatitude interannual variability. The discrepancies in ozone temporal variability are larger in the tropics, with differences between the data sets of up to 55% in the seasonal cycle amplitude. However, the differences among the climatologies are everywhere much smaller than the range produced by current chemistry-climate models, indicating that the multiple-instrument ensemble is useful for quantitatively evaluating these models.