2 resultados para National interest

em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of traditional psychiatric services with case management services on the functioning of people with schizophrenia. Traditional services were defined as routine clinic services consisting of medication follow-along, psychotherapy, and support services. Case management consisted of activities involved in linking, planning, and monitoring services for the outpatient client who has schizophrenia. The target population was adult schizophrenics who had been receiving outpatient clinic services for a minimum of six months. Structured interviews were conducted using standardized scales (e.g., Quality of Life, Self-Efficacy, and Brief Symptom Inventory) with 78 outpatient client volunteers from two sites: Nova Scotia (Canada) and Texas (USA). The researcher tested for differences in psychiatric symptomatology, recidivism, and quality of life for persons with schizophrenia receiving traditional psychiatric services in Nova Scotia and traditional plus case management services in Texas. Data were collected from the structured interviews and medical records review forms. Types of services were blocked into low and high levels of Intensity (frequency x minutes) and compared to determine the relative contribution of each. Finally, the role of clients' self-efficacy was tested as an intervening variable. Although the findings did not support the hypotheses in the direction anticipated, there were some interesting and useful results. From the Nova Scotia site, clients who received low levels of services were hospitalized less compared to the Texas site. The more psychotic a patient was the higher their involvement in medication follow-along and the more monitoring they received. The more psychotherapy received, the lower the reported satisfaction with social relationships. Of particular interest is the role that self-efficacy played in improved client outcomes. Although self-efficacy scores were related to improved functioning, the mechanism for this still needs to be clarified through subsequent research. ^

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This research study offers a critical assessment of NIH's Consensus Development Program (CDP), focusing upon its historical and valuative bases and its institutionalization in response to social and political forces. The analysis encompasses systems-level, as well as interpersonal factors in the adoption of consensus as the mechanism for resolving scientific controversies in clinical practice application. Further, the evolution of the CDP is also considered from an ecological perspective as a reasoned adaptation by NIH to pressures from its supporters and clients for translating biomedical research into medical practice. The assessment examines federal science policy and institutional designs for the inclusion of the public interest and democratic deliberation.^ The study relies on three distinct approaches to social research. Conventional historical methods were utilized in the interpretation of social and political influences across eras on the evolution of the National Institutes of Health and its response to demands for accountability and relevance through its Consensus Development Program. An embedded single-case study was utilized for an empirical examination of the CDP mechanism through five exemplar conferences. Lastly, a sociohistorical approach was taken to the CDP in order to consider its responsiveness to the values of the eras which created and shaped it. An exploration of organizational behavior with considerations for institutional reform as a response to continuing political and social pressure, it is a study of organizational birth, growth, and response to demands from its environment. The study has explanatory import in its attempt to account for the creation, timing, and form of the CDP, relative to political, institutional, and cultural pressures, and predictive import thorough its historical view which provides a basis for informed speculation on the playing out of tensions between extramural and intermural scientists and the current demands for health care reform. ^