Table 4.
Self-rated functioning/disability, quality of life (QoL), experiences of care (therapeutic milieu and satisfaction with care) of residents of different types of RF
| SRP1 N = 76 (47.2%) residents |
SRP2 N = 48 (29.8%) residents |
SRP3 N = 37 (23.0%) residents |
Total N = 161 (100%) residents |
p ANOVA or Chi-Square* tests |
Bonferroni post-hoc correction |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Functioning/disability Mean (SD) WHODAS 2.0 score (range 0 - 4) Higher scores denote higher disability | ||||||
| Total score |
1.1 (0.7) (75residents) |
1.0 (0.7) (47residents) |
0.9 (0.7) (37residents) |
1.0 (0.7) (159residents) |
0.705 | – |
|
Quality of life Mean (SD) WHOQOL-Brief score (range 26 -130) Higher scores denote greater QoL | ||||||
| Physical domain | 62.9 (17.4) | 69.6 (17.9) | 74.1 (16.1) | 67.5 (17.8) | 0.004 | SRP1 vs SRP3 |
| Psychological domain | 54.7 (17.7) | 55.7 (18.9) | 63.4 (16.9) | 57.0 (18.1) | 0.048 | SRP1 vs SRP3 |
| Social relationship domain | 52.1 (20.3) | 50.5 (20.0) | 59.7 (19.8) | 53.4 (20.2) | 0.090 | – |
| Environment domain | 62.7 (16.8) | 61.2 (15.8) | 66.4 (15.9) | 63.1 (16.3) | 0.339 | – |
| Total score | 54.0 (17.0) | 55.4 (15.9) | 63.4 (17.4) | 56.6 (17.1) | 0.020 | SRP1 vs SRP3 |
|
Therapeutic milieu Mean (SD) WAS-P score (range 0 -100). Higher scores denote greater satisfaction | ||||||
| Relationship dimensions | 18.1 (5.3) | 16.3 (5.7) | 17.4 (4.6) | 17.4 (5.3) | 0.212 | – |
| Treatment program dimensions | 21.5 (4.8) | 19.8 (5.3) | 20.8 (3.9) | 20.9 (4.8) | 0.174 | – |
| System maintenance dimensions | 19.8 (3.2) | 19.9 (4.7) | 20.6 (2.4) | 20.0 (3.5) | 0.518 | – |
| Total score | 58.6 (12.1) | 56.2 (13.0) | 58.8 (8.3) | 58.0 (11.6) | 0.500 | – |
| Satisfaction with the care received Mean (SD) VSSS-32 score (range 1 -5). Higher scores denote greater satisfaction | ||||||
| Overall satisfaction | 4.1 (1.1) | 3.9 (0.8) | 3.8 (1.0) | 4.0 (1.0) | 0.239 | – |
| Professionals’ skills, and behaviour | 4.0 (0.8) | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.8 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.7) | 0.117 | – |
| Information | 3.6 (1.2) | 3.4 (1.2) | 3.5 (1.1) | 3.5 (1.2) | 0.724 | – |
| Access | 4.0 (0.8) | 3.9 (0.9) | 3.8 (0.8) | 3.9 (0.8) | 0.231 | – |
| Efficacy | 3.9 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.8) | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.7 (0.8) | 0.031 | SRP2 vs SRP1 |
| Types of intervention | 3.6 (0.5) | 3.5 (0.4) | 3.7 (0.5) | 3.6 (0.4) | 0.618 | – |
| General impression of RF | 1.0 (1.8) | 1.3 (1.9) | 3.0 (1.9) | 1.5 (2.0) | < 0.001 | SRP1/SRP2 vs SRP3 |
| Help received in finding a job | 0.9 (1.6) | 0.2 (0.7) | 0.5 (1.3) | 0.6 (1.4) | 0.018 | SRP2 vs SRP1 |
| Relatives’ involvement | 3.5 (1.0) | 3.2 (1.4) | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.4 (1.1) | 0.133 | – |
| Total Score | 3.8 (0.6) (65residents) | 3.6 (0.5) (39residents) | 3.7 (0.5) (30residents) | 3.7 (0.5) (134residents) | 0.281 | – |
SRP Struttura Residenziale Psichiatrica/ Psychiatric Residential Facility
SRP1 High intensity rehabilitation, SRP2 Medium intensity rehabilitation, SRP3 Medium-low level support
WHODAS 2.0 WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHOQoL-Brief WHO Quality of Life-Brief, WAS-P Ward Atmosphere Scale-patient version, VSSS-32 Verona Service Satisfaction Scale 32 item
*Bold values indicate statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level