The Drug Attitude Inventory-(DAI-30) was created to assess the effectiveness of medication used to treat people hospitalized with Schizophrenia (Lin et al. , 2013). This model was based upon 30 questions and yielded a true or false response. For each question resulting in a true response the number 1 assigned. False responses yielded a -1 response. At the end of the assessment scores totaling were referenced to as subjective and negative referred to as negative subjective (Lin et al. 2013). It was used to evaluate the ways patients felt about the medication they were prescribed, personal beliefs in relation to their mental health and well being (Lin et al. , 2013).
This showed some improvements in symptoms, however, findings were not significant and posttest finding decreased (Lin et al. , 2013). Lin et al. , 2013 stated, the DAI-30 was translated into Chinese and has good internal consistency… (p. 272). The “Schedule for Assessment of Insight- expanded Version (including treatment adherence) this assessment uses an interview like structure and is rated on a Likert scale and assess the aspects of the knowledge a person has (Lin et al. , 2013). The article “Patient Activation in Schizophrenia: Insight from Stories of Illness and Recovery” was completed using a mixed method approach (Salyers et al. , 2013). Most of the people from this study were of African American status, receiving services from the Veterans or within the community and diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
Patients Activation relates to what is known about the illness, a persons’ ability to take charge of their illness and a strong self-esteem to manage their life. This model used the Semi structured Indian Psychiatric Illness Interview and a narrative approach to obtain data (Salyer et al. , 2013). Findings suggests, using medication and effective treatment helps to have an overall positive effect. The Narrative approach was used to complete this assessment using an interviewing technique. People were required to talk about their life these include, stories of past experiences throughout their lives.
Examiners, only use the inquiry procedure for clarity in relation to gather evidence. An important factor which stood out was if the behaviors’ surrounding the mental illness had change or alter the results of their lives in any way. Data from the procedure was transcribed and recorded using a coded concept to fully understand the evidence collected (Salyers et al. , 2013). 52 people were originally selected to participate in this study. 48 people agreed, 1 person refused and the device did not work during an assessment with another.
What people knew in regards to their mental illness showed no difference between high or low patient activation (Salyers et al. , 2013). The Patient Activation model suggested eight topics which lined up with this model (Salyers et al. , 2013). 11 people demonstrated a lower ability to control their illness and viewed their symptoms as being unexpected. 12 people from the high activation group displayed positive attitude towards controlling their life, however, they also face some challenges (Salyers et al. , 2013). 6 people only spoke about medication or treatment groups and 2 spoke about effects from the medication (Salyers et al. 2013).
One area of this study which stood out was the people who actively described their interactions with their doctors. Findings suggest that people in the higher activation groups accepted more responsibility in regards to their treatment (Salyers et al. , 2013). Areas which provided evidence of high or low Patient Activation were the area that brought gratification. These include living alone, consuming drugs and staying out of the hospital (Salyers et al. , 2013). On the other hand, areas which caused people behaviors’ to get worst were not taking their medication, using drugs and exposing themselves to stressful situations.
On the lower and higher end of the scale were people who sustained injuries in the past and refuse to mention this factor (Salyers et al. , 2013). The Randomized Control study, the sample size was too small to evaluate if the study was useful to the participants. The study is similar to A Pilot study, it evaluated the same approach to collect data on people who were leaving the hospital setting. The 1 month period was not long enough to determine whether people with symptoms were controlled or deteriorated. IMR was compared to TAU and the participants showed more results with IMR than TAU (Lin et al. , 2013).
Additionally, overall, “both groups improved equally on the thought disturbing scale” (Lin et al. , 2013). More research is needed for this study to extend it for a long term period greater than 1 month with all its measures. Lin et al. , 2013 stated, “This was the first controlled evaluation of this version of IN program in an East Asian culture and the first to evaluate it in an acute setting” (p. 258). The Pilot study provided people with essential skills and knowledge to effectively handle their symptoms. This article discussed four indictors of Illness Management and Recovery which include, knowledge of IllnessManagement (KI) Scale.
The scale is based upon 14 items measures using a 5-point Likert scale. Outcomes were higher score indicating a greater understanding of the illness. The Drug Attitude Inventory was 30 questions based upon true or false responses in response to medication. Results with this approach showed good internal consistency with this study… ” (p. 271). Future outlook for this study suggests, people with Schizophrenia be offered this treatment approach for a longer period of time once they are reintegrated back into the community and be more focused on recovery (Lin et al. , 2013).
This study is similar to the Patient Activation approach, both studies used the Illness Management and Recovery method to get patients to use insight, knowledge and their attitude towards medication given to treat Schizophrenia. This is based upon what the person is aware of and ways of handling their symptoms (Lin et al. , 2013). The Brief psychiatric scale uses 18 items on a Likert scale to assess the impact of good and negative symptoms of the illness (Lin et al. , 2013). A comparison was made in relation to the persons’ behavior and their attitude (Lin et al. , 2013).
Finding imply a positive reaction between the insight score and medication used (Lin et al. , 2013). Lin et al. , 2013 states it is also beneficial for the person conducting the assessment to have knowledge in regards to the measure being used and the areas being evaluated (p. 275). Patients Activation in Schizophrenia completed assessments using the “Semistructure Indiana Psychiatric Interview” People were asked to give descriptive details surrounding in reference to their life experiences (Salyers et al. , 2013). The person basically discusses aspects which they perceive to be responsible for their overall symptoms.
This information is based on the person belief, areas responsible for their illness, their physical health, important factors in life that made them proud, things that they belief may make them worst and how the individual evaluates themselves (Salyers et at. , 2013). Overall some of the people were able to manage their symptoms, while others had little confidence within themselves (Salyers et al. , 2013). Some of the people showed a positive response with being able to control symptoms and their lives (Salyers et al. , 2013).
This study was different in some ways because it use the interview and insight approach. During treatment experiences, one group demonstrated high group activation from their interactions with the doctor. People with Schizophrenia face many difficult situations however, with the Illness Management and Recovery approach which seems to be more centered on the client’s needs and more focused on the clients individualized goals. Despite this fact, clients who create goals can connect daily experiences which can instill hope and build a different perspective as they work towards their recovery.
