Il contributo dei pazienti come ricercatori: uno studio cross-over su qualità della vita e soddisfazione

Aim:Evidence suggests that patients interviewed by a peer are more likely to show negative responses about satisfaction with mental health services than in clinician-led interviews. In this cross-over study, we engaged service users in collecting data on patients’ satisfaction with their mental health care services and quality of life (QoL). Peer-led and clinician-led interviews were carefully analyzed for differences. Methods: Between January and May 2010, 92 patients attending our outpatient psychiatric services were invited to participate in the study. All patients were interviewed twice (once by a peer and once by a clinician, in a randomized fashion). The time interval between the two interviews was approximately 10 days (range: 7 to 14 days). We collected data on the period effect (i.e., the temporal interval between the first and the second interview), the sequence effect (initial peer-led interview followed by a clinician-led interview or vice versa), and the treatment effect (i.e., type of interviewer). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) was used to assess QoL. Data on satisfaction with mental health services, treatments, and work support were also collected. Results: Some answers to interview questions were slightly different between peer-led and clinician-led interviews, although this difference did not reach significance. We found a statistically significant treatment effect that explained the observed differences in the WHOQOL-BREF scores. Conclusions: Taken together, our results indicate that patients interviewed by a peer are more likely to reveal negative responses about QoL compared with clinician-led interviews. A higher level of confidence with peers than with professionals may at least in part explain these findings.