Partial versus full hospitalization for adults in psychiatric distress: a systematic review of the published literature (1957-1997).

OBJECTIVE: The authors reviewed published research that compared partial and full hospitalization as alternative programs for the care of mentally ill adults, with the goal of both systematizing the knowledge base and providing directions for future research. METHOD: Studies published since 1950 were obtained through manual and electronic searches. Results were stratified by outcome domain, type of measure used to report between-group differences (global, partial, or rate-based), and time of assessment. Effect sizes were computed and combined within a random-effects framework. RESULTS: Eighteen investigations published between 1957 and 1997 were systematically reviewed. Over half of eligible patients were excluded a priori; diagnostic severity of enrollees varied widely. On measures of psychopathology, social functioning, family burden, and service utilization, the authors found no evidence of differential outcome in the selected patient population admitted to the studies reviewed. Rates of satisfaction with services suggested an advantage for partial hospitalization within 1 year of discharge, with the gap being largest at 7-12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial hospitalization is not an option for all patients requiring intensive services, outcomes of partial hospitalization patients in these studies were no different from those of inpatients. Further, patients and families were more satisfied with partial hospitalization in the short term. Weaknesses of the studies limited the scope of our inquiry and the generalizability of findings. Positive findings require replication under the present circumstances of mental health care, and more research is needed to identify predictors of differential outcome and successful partial hospitalization. A clearer definition of partial hospitalization will help consolidate its role in the continuum of mental health services.

Rating of medication influences (ROMI) scale in schizophrenia.

Noncompliance with neuroleptic treatment is a major barrier to delivery of effective treatment for schizophrenia outpatients. This article describes the development of a standardized measure for the assessment of attitudinal and behavioral factors influencing patient compliance with neuroleptic treatment. The Rating of Medication Influences (ROMI) scale was developed as part of a longitudinal study of neuroleptic noncompliance in schizophrenia and administered to 115 discharged schizophrenia outpatients. Analyses of the following were conducted to assess the scale's psychometric properties: (1) interrater reliability, (2) internal consistency, (3) principal components, (4) correlation with other subjective measures, and (5) correlation with independent family reports. Most (95%) of the ROMI patient-report items were reliable, whereas rater-judgment items were not reliable. The rater section was dropped. A principal components analysis of the reliable patient-report items yielded three subscales related to compliance (Prevention, Influence of Others, and Medication Affinity) and five subscales related to noncompliance (Denial/Dysphoria, Logistical Problems, Rejection of Label, Family Influence, and Negative Therapeutic Alliance). There were significant correlations between these subscales, and independently obtained family-report ROMI items were significant. The Denial/Dysphoria subscale correlated strongly with two other published measures of dysphoric response to neuroleptics, whereas the other noncompliance subscales did not. The ROMI is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used to assess the patient's subjective reasons for medication compliance and non-compliance. The subscale findings suggest that the ROMI provides a more comprehensive data base for patient-reported compliance attitudes than the other available subjective measures. Indications for use of the ROMI and other subjective measures of neuroleptic response are reviewed.