scholarly journals What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e10193
Author(s):  
Rita Pilar Romero-Galisteo ◽  
Pablo Gálvez Ruiz ◽  
Angel Blanco Villaseñor ◽  
Maria Rodríguez-Bailón ◽  
Manuel González-Sánchez

Background Families are a fundamental aspect in the current perspective of Early Intervention, and knowing their opinion with quantitative and qualitative research is necessary for its improvement. The objective of this research was to evaluate the quality of the service perceived in Early Intervention Centers and its relationship with satisfaction and future intention, as well as to identify factors that are associated with the perception of users. Methods A measurement model of 50 items and an open question to gather qualitative information was used in a sample of 233 participants. A confirmatory factor analysis and a regression analysis were conducted. Regarding the qualitative data, the information was subjected to a thematic content analysis in order to delve into the perception of the participants. Results The model showed a satisfactory fit and the regression analysis indicated that treatment rooms (β =  − 0.28) and adaptation of activities (β = 0.27) have greater weight with respect to satisfaction, whereas for future intention, the factors of greater weight were adaptation of activities (β = 0.23) and location (β = 0.20). The qualitative analysis showed three themes: facilitators, barriers and suggestions for improvement. Within facilitators, the participants were satisfied with the Early Intervention professionals, and they made improvement suggestions for the detected barriers to improve the facilities and the follow-up of the child. Conclusions The study offers a wide perspective of the perception of the service with an active participation of families in the treatment within the Early Intervention service. This will allow professionals in Early Intervention, service providers and researchers to consider the families as intervention agents capable of providing their opinion and making decisions, and not only as passive elements.

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 377-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul McCrone ◽  
Tom K. J. Craig ◽  
Paddy Power ◽  
Philippa A. Garety

BackgroundThere is concern that delaying treatment for psychosis may have a negative impact on its long-term course. A number of countries have developed early intervention teams but there is limited evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness.AimsTo compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of an early intervention service in London with standard care.MethodIndividuals in their first episode of psychosis (or those who had previously discontinued treatment) were recruited to the study. Clinical variables and costs were measured at baseline and then at 6- and 18-month follow-up. Information on quality of life and vocational outcomes were combined with costs to assess cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 144 people were randomised. Total mean costs were £11 685 in the early intervention group and £14 062 in the standard care group, with the difference not being significant (95% CI –£8128 to £3326). When costs were combined with improved vocational and quality of life outcomes it was shown that early intervention would have a very high likelihood of being cost-effective.ConclusionsEarly intervention did not increase costs and was highly likely to be cost-effective when compared with standard care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document