2002
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.180.3.266
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of a routine, self-report outcome measure (HoNOSCA–SR) in two adolescent mental health services

Abstract: Routine outcome measurement can include adolescent self-rating with modest additional resources. The discrepancy between staff and adolescent views requires further evaluation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

9
64
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
9
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…HoNOSCA-SR (Gowers, Levine, Bailey-Rogers, Shore, & Burhouse, 2002) This is an adolescent self-rated version of HoNOSCA whose psychometric properties have recently been described.…”
Section: Motivational Questionnairementioning
confidence: 99%
“…HoNOSCA-SR (Gowers, Levine, Bailey-Rogers, Shore, & Burhouse, 2002) This is an adolescent self-rated version of HoNOSCA whose psychometric properties have recently been described.…”
Section: Motivational Questionnairementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Intake HoNOSCA scores for in-patient samples are typically higher than those for outpatient samples [3,9]. Adolescents tend to score higher than children on suicide ideation, selfinjury, substance abuse and depressive symptoms [3,8].…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…For example, although HoNOSCA scores improve, the size of the reduction is less than that found for child and adolescent inpatients (Garralda et al, 2010;Gowers et al, 2002). This may occur because the admission HoNOSCA scores are slightly lower than in the inpatient unit, so less change might be expected, but more importantly, the day-patients were deliberately discharged when it was felt they could manage at home or in community settings although it was known they were still quite impaired.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This rates 13 clinical features on a five-point severity scale, and a higher score indicates more symptoms and problems, with a maximum score of 52 (Gowers et al, 1999). The instrument has satisfactory reliability and validity (Gowers et al, 2002;Harnett et al, 2005). It has been widely used as an outcome measure in CAMHS, including for the evaluation of child and adolescent day programmes (Kennair et al, 2011) and inpatient settings (Garralda et al, 2010).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%