Journal List > Korean J Schizophr Res > v.17(1) > 1057799

TOOLS
Kim, Choi, and Lee: A Study on Satisfaction with Mental Health Services and Quality of Life among Patients with Schizophrenia in the Community Mental Health Center
Original Article

Korean J Schizophr Res 2014;17(1):27-35.

Published online: 20 January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16946/kjsr.2014.17.1.27

A Study on Satisfaction with Mental Health Services and Quality of Life among Patients with Schizophrenia in the Community Mental Health Center

Hyun Mi Kim, MA1, , Jin Sook Choi, MD, PhD2, Mi Ok Lee3

1Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Department of Psychiatry, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

3The Positive People, Seoul, Korea

Address for correspondence: Hyun Mi Kim, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: 02-2228-5980, Fax: 02-2227-7964 E-mail: wisemi27@yuhs.ac

Received 16 December 2013       Revised 8 March 2014       Accepted 11 March 2014

Copyright © 2014 Korean Society for Schizophrenia Research

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate client satisfaction with mental health services across sociodemographi-cal and service utilization characteristics and to identify the predictors for quality of life for schizophrenic patients who registered in community mental health center.

Methods

One hundred five schizophrenic patients who had received intensive or continuing care completed questionnaires, which included Consumer Satisfaction Scale and the Korean version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument-Brief (WHOQOL-BREF). Subject's sociodemographic and service utilization characteristics were compared using t-test or one-way analysis of variance. To examine the influence of these variables on quality of life, stepwise multiple regression was conducted.

Results

: Consumer satisfaction scores differed significantly depending on the length of contact with a current mental health staff. In a stepwise multiple regression model, service relevance and occupation together explained 20.5% of variance in quality of life.

Conclusion

The results suggest that continuity in contact with a current mental health staff was important in consumer satisfaction. Service relevance and occupation had an impact on quality of life.

References

1. Seoul Mental Health Center. Seoul Mental Health Service Frame-work;. 2008. 3.
2. Seoul Mental Health Center. Seoul Mental Health Service Proto-col;. 2008. 30.
3. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Workbooks on Evaluation of Psychoactive Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Clients Satisfaction Evaluation;. 2000. 7–12. Available from URL:. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_5868_EN_6_client_satisfaction_evaluations.pdf.
4. Ruggeri M. Greenfield TK. The Italian version of the service satisfaction scale (SSS-30) adapted for community-based psychiatric patients: development, factor analysis and application. Eval Program Plann. 1995; 18:191–202.
5. Larsen DL, Attikinsson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguten TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann. 1979; 2:197–207.
crossref
6. Willer RD, Miller GH. On the relationship of client satisfaction to client characteristics and outcome of treatment. J Clin Psychol. 1978; 32:137–160.
crossref
7. Björkman T, Hansson L, Sandlund M. Outcome of case management based on the strengths model compared to standard care. A randomized controlled trial. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002; 37:147–152.
8. Holloway F, Carson J. Intensive case management for the severely mentally ill. Controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 1998; 172:19–22.
9. Min SY. A Path analysis of the case management implementation factors with client satisfaction and quality of life among the mentally ill persons in the community. Korean Journal of Social Welfare. 2009; 61:103–127.
10. Kahng SK, Jwa HS. Service satisfaction, self-efficacy, and quality of life among psychiatric rehab service consumers. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies. 2007; 33:185–213.
11. Ruggeri M, Gater R, Bisoffi G, Barbui C, Tansella M. Determinants of subjective quality of life in patients attending community-based mental health services. The South-Verona Outcome Project 5. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002; 105:131–140.
crossref
12. 강남구 정신보건센터. 서비스 만족도에 영향을 및는 요인과 전향 적인 정신보건서비스 방향;. 2010. 108.
13. Min SK, Kim KI, Suh SY, Kim DK. Development of the Korean version of WHO Quality of Life Scale abbreviated version (WHO-QOL-BREF). J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2000; 39:571–579.
14. Sullivan G, Spritzer KL. Consumer satisfaction with CMHC services. Community Ment Health J. 1997; 33:123–131.
15. Eklund M, Hansson L. Determinants of satisfaction with community-based psychiatric services: a cross-sectional study among schizophrenia outpatients. Nord J Psychiatry. 2001; 55:413–418.
crossref
16. Holloway F, Carson J. Subjective quality of life, psychopathology, satisfaction with care and insight: an exploratory study. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1999; 45:259–267.
crossref
17. Kwon TY, Kahng SK. A Study on the factors affecting service satisfaction among individuals served by community-based mental rehabilitation agencies. Mental Health & Social Work. 2006; 24:5–35.
18. Eisen S, Grob B. Measuring discharged patients'satisfaction with care at a private psychiatric hospital. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1982; 33:227–228.
19. Attkisson CC, Zwick R. The client satisfaction questionnaire: psychiatric properties and correlation with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann. 1982; 5:223–257.
20. Svensson B, Hansson L. Satisfaction with mental health services. A user participation approach. Nord J Psychiatry. 2006; 60:365–371.
crossref
21. Seoul National University Mental Health Commission. Development of National Mental Health Plan 2011–2015;. 2010. 27–67.
22. Ruggeri M, Biggeri A, Rucci P, Tansella M. Multivariate analysis of outcome of mental health care using graphical chain models. The South-Verona Outcome Project 1. Psychol Med. 1998; 28:1421–1431.
crossref
23. Cook JA, Razzano L. Vocational rehabilitation for persons with schizophrenia: recent research and implications for practice. Schizophr Bull. 2000; 26:87–103.
crossref
24. Chan PS, Krupa T, Lawson JS, Eastabrook S. An outcome in need of clarity: building a predictive model of subjective quality of life for persons with severe mental illness living in the community. Am J Occup Ther. 2005; 59:181–190.
crossref
25. Bejerholm U, Eklund M. Occupational engagement in persons with schizophrenia: relationships to self-related variables, psychopathology, and quality of life. Am J Occup Ther. 2007; 61:21–32.
crossref
26. Priebe S, Warner R, Hubschmid T, Eckle I. Employment, attitudes toward work, and quality of life among people with schizophrenia in three countries. Schizophr Bull. 1998; 24:469–477.
crossref
27. Kim SH, Oh SS, Lee EH, Kim HJ. The chronic schizophrenic patient's quality of life: focused on stress coping strategy, symptom, and family support. Korean J Clin Psychol. 2005; 24:73–87.
28. Priebe S, McCabe R, Junghan U, Kallert T, Ruggeri M, Slade M, Reininghaus U. Association between symptoms and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia: a pooled analysis of changes over time. Schizophr Res. 2011; 133:17–21.
crossref
29. Ruggeri M, Bisoffi G, Fontecedro L, Warner R. Subjective and objective dimensions of quality of life in psychiatric patients: a factor analytical approach. The South Verona Outcome Project 4. Br J Psychiatry. 2001; 178:268–275.
30. Hansson L, Eklund M, Bengtsson-Tops A. The relationship of personality dimensions as measured by the temperament and character inventory and quality of life in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder living in the community. Qual Life Res. 2001; 10:133–139.

Table 1.
Subjects' sociodemographic data
Characteristics N %
Sex
Male 67 63.8
Female 38 36.2
Age (years)
＜30 18 17.1
30–39 26 24.8
40–49 24 22.9
50–59 27 25.7
≥60 10 09.5
Education
Below middle school 31 29.5
High school 48 45.7
College 26 24.8
Monthly income (10,000 won)
Less 100 78 74.3
Above 100 27 25.7
Occupation    
Yes 21 20.0
No 84 80.0
Duration of Illness (years)
＜1 06 05.7
1–5 08 07.6
6–10 21 20.0
11–20 30 28.6
21–30 27 25.7
＞30 13 12.4
GAF score
≤40 03 02.9
41–60 74 70.5
≥61 28 26.7
Table 2.
Subjects' service utilization data
  N %
Length of enrollment (years)
＜1 14 13.3
1–5 35 33.3
6–10 19 18.1
≥11 37 35.2
Length of contact with a current mental health staff (months)
＜6 21 20.0
6–12 37 35.2
13–36 25 23.8
≥37 22 21.0
Number of visits each month
＜1 03 02.9
1 50 47.6
2 37 35.2
≥3 15 14.3
Number of telephone contacts each month
0 33 31.4
1 27 25.7
2 28 26.7
≥3 17 16.2
Day and vocational rehabilitation program
Yes 45 42.9
No 60 57.1
Needs-based intervention program
Yes 28 26.7
No 77 73.3
Table 3.
Subjects' consumer satisfaction and quality of life scores
Scale Range Mean±SD
Consumer satisfaction
Program 16–320 24.19±03.61
Therapist 05–200 15.21±02.49
Service relevance 14–280 20.73±03.13
Total 40–800 60.13±08.26
Quality of life
Overall quality of life and general health 02–100 06.80±01.80
Physical health domain 11–310 22.46±04.54
Psychological domain 06–300 18.91±04.94
Social relationships domain 03–150 09.02±02.56
Environmental domain 13–400 25.12±05.65
Total 43–118 82.18±16.24
Table 4.
Comparison of consumer satisfaction across the sociodemographical characteristics
Characteristics Program Therapist Service relevance Total
Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p
Sex   −0.099 0.922   1.056 0.294   0.121 0.904   0.320 0.750
Male 24.2±3.7     15.4 ±2.5     20.8±3.3     60.3 ±8.5    
Female 24.2 ±3.5     14.9 ±2.5     20.7±2.9     59.8 ±7.8    
Age (years)   1.781 0.139   −0.230 0.921   0.883 0.477   −1.065 0.378
<30 23.0 ±3.6     15.0 ±1.9     20.2±2.9     58.2 ±6.9    
30–39 23.5 ±3.8     14.9 ±2.2     20.1 ±2.4     58.5 ±7.7    
40–49 24.1 ± 3.9     15.3±3.1     20.9 ±3.8     60.3± 10.1    
50–59 25.3±3.1     15.6 ±2.5     21.2±3.2     62.0 ±7.7    
>60 25.6± 3.0     15.1 ±2.8     21.8±3.0     62.5 ±8.4    
Education   −0.082 0.921   −0.049 0.952   0.169 0.845   −0.050 0.951
Below middle school 24.2 ±3.4     15.2 ±2.2     20.6±2.9     60.3 ±7.4    
High school 24.1 ± 4.0     15.3 ±2.8     20.7±3.2     60.0 ±8.9    
College 24.4 ±3.3     15.1 ±2.3     21.0±3.3     60.7± 7.8    
Monthly income (10,000 won)   0.316 0.752   −1.379 0.171   0.057 0.955   −0.253 0.801
Less 100 24.3 ±3.5     15.0 ±2.5     20.7±3.1     60.0 ±8.2    
Above 100 24.0 ±4.0     15.8 ±2.3     20.7±3.3     60.5 ±8.6    
Occupation   −0.336 0.737   −0.840 0.403   0.967 0.336   −0.035 0.972
Yes 24.4 ±3.4     15.6 ±2.5     20.1 ±2.8     60.1 ± 8.4    
No 24.1 ± 3.7     15.1 ±2.5     20.9 ±3.2     60.2 ±7.7    
Duration of Illness (years)   −0.459 0.806   −0.560 0.730   0.340 0.887   −0.291 0.917
<1 24.3 ±1.6     14.7 ±2.4     21.3±3.4     60.3 ±5.8    
1–5 22.9 ±4.3     15.0 ±2.3     19.5 ±2.7     57.4±8.7    
6–10 24.3±3.7     15.8 ±1.9     21.0±3.0     61.0 ± 7.7    
11–20 23.7±3.8     15.2±2.1     20.6±3.0     59.6± 7.9    
21–30 24.8 ±3.8     15.3 ±3.0     20.7±3.5     60.9 ±9.3    
>30 24.4 ±3.4     14.4 ±3.3     21.1 ±3.3     59.8±9.5    
GAF score   1.262 0.288   −2.667 0.074   0.761 0.470   −1.708 0.186
<40 24.3 ±2.5     16.0 ±1.7     20.7±0.6     61.0±3.6    
41–60 23.8±3.7     14.9 ±2.5     20.5 ±3.3     59.2 ±8.5    
>61 25.1 ± 3.4     16.1 ±2.3     21.4±2.7     62.5 ±7.7    
Table 5.
Comparison of consumer satisfaction across the service utilization characteristics
Characteristics Program Therapist Service relevance Total
Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p Mean±SD T or F p
Length of enrollment (years)   1.002 0.395   −0.101 0.959   −0.106 0.956   −0.255 0.858
<1 24.4 ±2.8     15.3 ±2.0     20.5 ±2.5     60.1 ± 5.8    
1–5 23.5 ±3.8     15.1 ±2.8     20.6 ±3.2     59.2±8.8    
6–10 23.8 ±4.0     15.5 ±2.4     20.9 ±2.9     60.2± 8.3    
>11 24.9 ±3.4     15.1 ±2.5     20.9 ±3.5     60.9 ±8.8    
Length of contact with a current mental health staff   4.324∗∗ 0.007   4.779∗∗ 0.004   4.160∗∗ 0.008   5.397∗∗ 0.002
<6 23.6 ±3.5 4 >1, 2, 3∗   15.2 ±1.8 4 >2∗   20.3 ±2.9 4 >2∗   59.5 ±7.4 4 > 1,2,3∗  
6–122 23.5 ±2.6     14.3 ±2.5     19.9±2.7     57.6± 6.7    
13–363 23.6 ±4.0     15.3±2.7     20.7 ±3.4     59.6± 8.9    
>374 26.5 ±3.9     16.7 ±2.2     22.6 ±3.1     65.9 ±8.4    
Number of visits each month   1.273 0.288   −2.096 0.105   −0.229 0.876   1.063 0.369
<1 27.7± 5.9     18.6 ±1.5     21.7 ±4.2     68.0 ±11.5    
  24.3 ±3.5     15.2 ±2.7     20.5 ±2.9     60.0 ±8.1    
2 24.2±3.7     15.1 ±2.4     21.0 ±3.3     60.3± 8.6    
>3 23.3 ±3.2     14.9 ±1.8     20.6 ±3.4     58.7± 7.3    
Number of telephone contacts each month   1.360 0.259   −2.084 0.107   −3.415∗ 0.020   2.290 0.083
01 23.4 ±3.9     15.0±3.1     19.6 ±3.0 3 >1 ∗   58.0±9.1    
<2 24.1 ± 3.3     14.4 ±2.0     20.4 ±3.1     59.0± 7.2    
<3 24.4±3.7     15.5 ±2.3     21.7 ±2.9     61.6± 8.0    
>34 25.5 ±3.3     16.2 ±1.9     21.8 ±3.3     63.6± 7.6    
Day and vocational rehabilitation program   −0.241 0.810   −0.518 0.606   −1.394 0.166   0.787 0.433
Yes 24.3 ±3.6     15.4 ±2.4     21.2 ±3.2     60.9 ±8.3    
No 24.1 ± 3.6     15.1 ±2.6     20.4 ±3.0     59.6± 8.3    
Needs-based intervention program   −0.041 0.968   0.164 0.870   −0.808 0.421   0.273 0.785
Yes 24.2 ±4.3     15.1 ±2.6     21.1 ±3.4     60.5 ±9.2    
No 24.2 ±3.4     15.2 ±2.5     20.6 ±3.0     60.0 ±7.9    

∗ p<0.05

∗ p<0.01, t: Post-hoc test

Table 6.
Correlations of consumer satisfaction scale scores with quality of life scale
  Service relevance
Program Therapist Service relevance Total
Quality of life 0.398∗∗∗ 0.381∗∗∗ 0.401∗∗∗ 0.441∗∗∗

∗∗∗ : p＜0.001

Table 7.
Stepwise multiple regression of quality of life
Step, variables B B t R2 R2change F p
1. Service relevance 2.099 0.401 4.426∗∗∗ 0.161 0.161 19.589 ＜0.001
2. Occupation 8.516 0.211 2.371∗∗∗ 0.205 0.044 13.050 ＜0.001

∗ : p＜0.05, ∗∗∗: p＜0.001

TOOLS
Similar articles