作者: Kelly Ann Zainal , , Beth Renwick , Alexandra Keyes , Anna Lose
DOI: 10.1186/S40337-016-0091-5
关键词: Process evaluation 、 Psychiatry 、 Public health 、 Clinical psychology 、 Mantra 、 Medicine 、 Randomized controlled trial 、 Alternative medicine 、 Patient treatment 、 Credibility 、 Eating disorders
摘要: This study is part of a series process evaluations within the MOSAIC Trial (Maudsley Outpatient Study Treatments for Anorexia Nervosa and Related Conditions). randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared two psychological treatments, Maudsley Model Treatment Adults with (MANTRA) Specialist Supportive Clinical Management (SSCM) adult outpatients Nervosa. The present integrates quantitative (treatment acceptability credibility) qualitative (written) feedback to evaluate patients’ treatment experiences. All 142 participants were asked (a) rate credibility on visual analogue scales (VAS) at six 12 months post-randomisation, (b) provide written regarding their views 12 months. Transcripts first analysed thematically then rated according global valence (positive, mixed/negative). 114/142 (80.3 %) provided VAS data 82 (57.7 %) feedback. At 12 months, MANTRA patients gave significantly higher ratings SSCM patients. A proportion also tended write in more detail give globally positive when individuals receiving SSCM. Qualitative themes suggest that experienced treatments differently terms characteristics outcomes. highlights benefits incorporating into RCT evaluations. willing express generally felt positively about this than those