Assessment of Biopsychosocial Complexity and Health Care Needs

Measurement Properties of the Intermed Self-Assessment Version

Bibliographic Data

ID19304528
AuthorsArianne K B van Reedt Dortland (GGZ inGeest, corresponding author), Lilian L Peters (0000-0003-2342-0799), Annette D Boenink (0000-0001-9791-8800), Jan H Smit, Joris P J Slaets (0000-0001-9387-2200), Adriaan W Hoogendoorn (0000-0003-4784-0712), Andreas Joos (0000-0001-6623-4836), Corine Latour (0000-0003-1247-1064), Corine H M Latour, Friedrich Stiefel (0000-0003-0326-7918), Cyrille Burrus (0000-0002-8153-8085), Marie Guitteny-Collas, Silvia Ferrari (0000-0001-7929-4520)
Year2017
Volume79
Issue4
Pages485-492
Publication date2017-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychosomatic Medicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-3174 • E-ISSN: 1534-7796
PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/psy.0000000000000446
PMID28033198
OpenAlexW2566087262
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited36

OBJECTIVE: The INTERMED Self-Assessment questionnaire (IMSA) was developed as an alternative to the observer-rated INTERMED (IM) to assess biopsychosocial complexity and health care needs. We studied feasibility, reliability, and validity of the IMSA within a large and heterogeneous international sample of adult hospital inpatients and outpatients as well as its predictive value for health care use (HCU) and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: A total of 850 participants aged 17 to 90 years from five countries completed the IMSA and were evaluated with the IM. The following measurement properties were determined: feasibility by percentages of missing values; reliability by Cronbach α; interrater agreement by intraclass correlation coefficients; convergent validity of IMSA scores with mental health (Short Form 36 emotional well-being subscale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), medical health (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale) and QoL (Euroqol-5D) by Spearman rank correlations; and predictive validity of IMSA scores with HCU and QoL by (generalized) linear mixed models. RESULTS: Feasibility, face validity, and reliability (Cronbach α = 0.80) were satisfactory. Intraclass correlation coefficient between IMSA and IM total scores was .78 (95% CI = .75-.81). Correlations of the IMSA with the Short Form 36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, and Euroqol-5D (convergent validity) were -.65, .15, .28, and -.59, respectively. The IMSA significantly predicted QoL and also HCU (emergency department visits, hospitalization, outpatient visits, and diagnostic examinations) after 3- and 6-month follow-up. Results were comparable between hospital sites, inpatients and outpatients, as well as age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IMSA is a generic and time-efficient method to assess biopsychosocial complexity and to provide guidance for multidisciplinary care trajectories in adult patients, with good reliability and validity across different cultures

Anxiety · Biopsychosocial model · Construct validity · Convergent validity · Criterion validity · Cronbach's alpha · Developmental psychology · Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale · Intraclass correlation · Outpatient clinic · Physical therapy · Psychiatry · Psychometrics · Quality of life (healthcare) · Rating scale · Chronic Disease Management Strategies · Clinical Psychology · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access