Stability and change in needs of patients with schizophrenic disorders: a 15- and 17-year follow-up from first onset of psychosis, and a comparison between 'objective' and 'subjective' assessments of needs for care.

Abstract

Need for care was studied in a Dutch incidence cohort of patients with schizophrenic disorders 15 and 17 years from first onset of psychosis. Long-term course of the disorders varied from complete remission and full community participation to chronic psychosis and long-term hospital stay. Fifty patients were assessed twice with the Needs For Care Assessment Schedule (NFCAS, Brewin and Wing 1989); at the latter follow-up an assessment was also made using the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN, Phelan et al. 1995). The NFCAS is an investigator- or professional-based instrument which provides an 'objective' assessment of needs. Need for care was recorded in 22 areas of clinical and social functioning. Comparison of the two assessments over a 2-year period demonstrated a high stability on the individual items (mean 88%, mostly concerning the absence of a problem twice), but did not show the expected stability of need status among this group of patients with chronic disorders. One in five patients (22%) had no needs at all on both occasions and 56% of the patients showed a change in needs. There was more negative than positive change: 28% suffered from new unmet needs at the 17-year follow-up, while only 12% had improved their status to no needs. About one-third (36%) had at least one unmet need, mostly regarding psychotic symptoms, dyskinesia or underactivity. The CAN provides a 'subjective' assessment of needs according to the view of patients themselves. The problems patients reported most commonly were in the areas of day-time activities, social relationships and information on their condition and treatment, for all which they asked for more help than they received. This patient-based instrument produces slightly higher numbers of problems and unmet needs, and a lower ratio between met and unmet needs. There is an overall percentage of 21% of disagreement between patient and investigator view regarding the unmet need status. Agreement between the two instruments on the nature of the problems with unmet needs was lacking altogether.