Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:39:44.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loss to follow-up in longitudinal psychiatric research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2011

Tilly Eichler ,
Matthias Schützwohl ,
Stefan Priebe ,
Donna Wright ,
Tomasz Adamowski ,
Joanna Rymaszewska ,
Petr Nawka ,
Ladislav Ocvár ,
Eva Kitzlerova  and
Jiri Raboch
...Show all authors
Tilly Eichler*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden (Germany)
Matthias Schützwohl
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden (Germany)
Stefan Priebe
Affiliation:
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry Barts' and The London School of Medicine, London (United Kingdom)
Donna Wright
Affiliation:
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry Barts' and The London School of Medicine, London (United Kingdom)
Tomasz Adamowski
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw University of Medicine, Wroclaw (Poland)
Joanna Rymaszewska
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw University of Medicine, Wroclaw (Poland)
Petr Nawka
Affiliation:
Michalovce Psychiatric Hospital, Michalovce (Slovak Republic)
Ladislav Ocvár
Affiliation:
Michalovce Psychiatric Hospital, Michalovce (Slovak Republic)
Eva Kitzlerova
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, First Medical Faculty, Charles University of Prague, Prague (Czech Republic)
Jiri Raboch
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, First Medical Faculty, Charles University of Prague, Prague (Czech Republic)
Thomas W. Kallert
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden (Germany)
*
Address tor correspondence: T. Eichler, Dresden University of Technology, Institute for Psychology and Psychotherapy, Chemnitzer Str. 46, 01187 Dresden, (Germany). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Aims – To analyse factors that differentiate patients who attend follow-up assessments versus those who do not, and to identify predictors for drop-out within the context of the European Day Hospital Evaluation Study (EDEN-Study). Methods – The EDEN-Study, a multi-center RCT comparing acute psychiatric day care with inpatient care, required re-assessment of patients at discharge, 3 and 12 months after discharge. Follow-up rates varied between 54.0% and 99.5%. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not attend follow-up were analysed using uni- and multivariate statistical methods. Results – Univariate analyses showed differences between patients regarding study site, treatment setting, living situation, employment, age, psychopathological symptoms and treatment satisfaction. They were not confirmed in multivariate analyses thus meaningful predictors of drop-out could not be identified. Conclusions – Results emphasize the general need to compare patients re-assessed and not re-assessed in terms of their most relevant socio-demographic and clinical variables to assess the generalizability of results.

Declaration of Interest: EDEN (Psychiatric day hospital treatment: An alternative to inpatient treatment, being cost-effective and minimizing post-treatment needs for care? An evaluative study in European countries with different care systems) was funded by the European Commission (Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme: QLG4-CT-2000-01700). Additional national grants supporting the project were provided by Roland-Ernst-Stiftung für Gesundheitswesen and the Faculty of Medicine at the Dresden University of Technology, the National Health Service Executive Organization and Management Programme, the Polish National Committee of Scientific Affairs, and the Slovak Ministry of Education. Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company supported travel and accommodation for EDEN project meetings.

Keywords

loss to follow-uppredictorsrandomized controlled trialacute psychiatric day care
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 138 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Badawi, M.A., Eaton, W.W., Myllyluoma, J., Weimer, L.G. & Gallo, J. (1999). Psychopathology and attrition in the Baltimore ECA 15-year follow-up 1981-1996. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 34, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BootsMiller, B.J., Ribisl, K.M., Mowbray, C.T., Davidson, W.S., Walton, M.A. & Herman, S.E. (1998). Methods of ensuring high follow-up rates: Lessons from a longitudinal study of dual diagnosed participants. Substance Use & Misuse 33, 2665–2685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, A. (2000). Development of the International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 102, Suppl. 405, 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmond, D.P., Maddux, J.F., Johnson, T.H. & Confer, B.A. (1995). Obtaining follow-up interviews for treatment evaluation. Journal of Substance Abuse 12, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, W., Anthony, J., Tepper, S. & Dryman, A. (1992). Psychopathology and attrition in the epidemiologic catchment area surveys. American Journal of Epidemiology 135, 1051–1059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, P., Fernandes, J., Roberts, I., & Kuppermann, N. (2007). Young men were at risk of becoming lost to follow-up in a cohort of head-injured adults. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (4), 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichler, T., Schützwohl, M., Glöckner, M, Matthes, C. & Kallert, T.W. (2006). Patients' assessments of acute psychiatric day hospital and inpatient care. Analyses of open questions within the context of a randomised controlled trial (in German). Psychiatrische Praxis 33 (4), 184–190.Google Scholar
Farmer, M.E., Locke, B.Z., Liu, I.Y. & Moscicki, E.K. (1994). Depressive symptoms and attrition. The NHANES 1 epidemiologic follow-up study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 3, 166–173.Google Scholar
Fischer, E.H., Dornelas, E.A. & Goethe, J.W. (2001). Characteristics of people lost to attrition in psychiatric follow-up studies. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 189, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, P., Wasylenki, D., Lancee, W. & Freeman, S.J. (1984). From hospital to community: Six month and two-year outcomes for 505 patients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 172, 667–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jay, G.M., Liang, J., Liu, X. & Sugisawa, H. (1993). Patterns of nonresponse in a national survey of elderly Japanese. Journal of Gerontology 48, 143–152.Google Scholar
Johnson, S., Kuhlmann, R. & the EPCAT Group (1997). The European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS), Version 3. University College London Medical School: London.Google Scholar
Kallert, T.W. & Schützwohl, M (2002). Clientele, assessment, and efficacy of psychiatric day hospital treatment: Implications resulting from existing research findings (in German). Schweizer Archiv für Neurologie und Psychiatrie 153,144–152.Google Scholar
Kallert, T.W., Schützwohl, M. & Matthes, C. (2000). Client Socio-Demographic and Clinical History Inventory CSCHI. Dresden University of Technology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus: Dresden.Google Scholar
Kallert, T.W., Schützwohl, M., Kiejna, A., Nawka, P., Priebe, S. & Raboch, J. (2002). Efficacy of psychiatric day hospital treatment: Review of research findings and design of a European multi-centre study. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 2, 55–71.Google Scholar
Kallert, T.W., Priebe, S., Schützwohl, M., Briscoe, J., Glöckner, M., and the EDEN-study group. (2004a). The role of acute day hospital treatment for mental health care: Research context and practical problems of carrying out the international multi-center EDEN-study. In Public Health in Europe (ed. Kirch, W.), pp. 153–172. Springer: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallert, T.W., Schützwohl, M., Glöckner, M., Priebe, S., Briscoe, J., Rymaszewska, J., Adamowski, T., Nawka, T., Reguliova, H., Raboch, J. & Howardova, A. (2004b). A comparison of psychiatric day hospitals in five European countries: implications of their diversity for day hospital research. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 39, 777–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallert, T.W., Glöckner, M., Onchev, G., Raboch, J., Karastergiou, A., Solomon, Z., Magliano, L., Dembinskas, A., Kiejna, A., Nawka, P., Torres-González, F., Priebe, S. & Kjellin, L. (2005). The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data. World Psychiatry 4, 168–172.Google ScholarPubMed
Kallert, T.W., Priebe, S., McCabe, R., Kiejna, A., Rymaszewska, J., Nawka, P., Ocvar, L., Raboch, J., Starkova-Kalisova, L., Koch, R. & Schützwohl, M. (2007). Are day hospitals effective for acutely ill psychiatric patients? A European multi-center randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 68 (2), 278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosten, T.R., Gawin, F.H., Kosten, T.A., Morgan, C., Rounsaville, B.J., Schottenfeld, R. & Kleber, H.D. (1992). Six-month follow-up of short term pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence. American Journal on Addictions 1, 40–49.Google Scholar
McGlashan, T.H. (1984). The Chestnut Lodge follow-up study: I. Follow-up methodology and study sample. Archives of General Psychiatry 41, 573–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mihelic, A.H. & Crimmins, EM (1997). Loss to follow-up in a sample of Americans 70 years of age and older: the LSOA 1984-1990. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 52, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priebe, S., Gruyters, T., Heinze, M. & Hoffmann, C. (1995). Subjective criteria for evaluation of psychiatric care - Methods for assessment in research and routine care (in German). Psychiatrische Praxis 22, 140–144.Google Scholar
Priebe, S., Jones, G., McCabe, R., Briscoe, J., Wright, D., Sleed, M. & Beecham, J. (2006). Effectiveness and costs of acute day hospital treatment compared with conventional in-patient care. Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 188, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schützwohl, M., Jarosz-Nowak, J., Briscoe, J., Szajowski, K., Kallert, T. & the Eden Study Group (2003). Inter-rater reliability of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule in a European multi-site randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of acute psychiatric day hospitals. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 12 (4), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqui, O., Flay, B.R. & Hu, F.B. (1996). Factors affecting attrition in a longitudinal smoking prevention study. Preventive Medicine 25, 554–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beijsterveldt, C.E.M., van Boxtel, M.P.J., Bosma, H., Houx, P.J., Buntinx, F. & Jolles, J. (2002). Predictors of attrition in a longitudinal cognitive aging study: The Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55, 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, J., Lukoff, D., Nuechterlein, K.H., Liberman, R.P., Green, M.F. & Shaner, A. (1993). Manual for the Expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 3, 227–243.Google Scholar