A naturalistic pilot study 41 section of the Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor (CNCM) (44); and the Self-Esteem Rating Scale-Short Form (SERS-SF) (45). In line with Muesers’ conceptual framework, we view improving on personal goals as a mediator variable between illness self-management and recovery (1). We will measure improving on personal goals with Granholm’s Goals Template (46). Objective recovery will be assessed using the Social Functioning Scale (47). Cost-utility The number and duration of outpatient treatment contacts and inpatient days will be calculated on the basis of their cost in Euros, and are related with changes in quality of life measured by the EQ-5D (38). Cost-utility can be calculated by transforming scores on the EQ-5D into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (48). IMR model fidelity The researchers will determine model fidelity using the IMR Fidelity Scale (49), the IMR General Organizational Index (GOI) (2), and the Illness Management and Recovery Treatment Integrity Scale (IT-IS) (50). Outcome measures for the pilot study Assessment of our primary objectives resulted in our primary feasibility outcomes, which regard 1) the number of participants, 2) clients’ and clinicians’ satisfaction with IMR, and 3) the effectiveness of the program. Assessment of our secondary objectives resulted in our secondary feasibility outcomes, which regard 1) fidelity, 2) setting up an infrastructure for education and supervision, 3) drop-out and completion, and 4) program duration. We also explored the completers’ characteristics. Like program duration, participants’ recruitment, dropout, and completion (i.e., participant numbers, participant characteristics related to dropout, and their reasons for dropout) are all measured by using monitoring data from the institute’s internal reports and registrations and by having interviews with clinicians. Completion of the program was defined as attendance of 70% of the program sessions; non-completers were termed “dropouts from treatment”. Participants' and clinicians’ satisfaction with IMR were assessed in interviews with participants and clinicians. The infrastructure for trainers’ training and supervision was assessed in interviews with clinicians. The principal researcher (BJR) and one co-author (MB) carried out the semi-structured interviews. These two authors categorized and summarized data according to the topics of the interviews.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw