Differences in self and independent ratings on an organisational dual diagnosis capacity measure

Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009 Nov;28(6):682-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00116.x.

Abstract

Introduction and aims: There are a number of tools to assist services to measure their capacity to respond to co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This study aimed to examine whether services could accurately self-rate their dual diagnosis capacity.

Design and methods: Data were collected from 13 alcohol and drug services across Australia that participated in a comorbidity capacity building initiative. The organisations provided a range of services, including pharmacotherapy and counselling services, residential and outpatient services, youth and adult services and withdrawal. There was a mix of government and non-government services.

Results: Services rated themselves substantially higher than the independent raters at both baseline and follow up.

Discussion and conclusions: The results suggest that services may not accurately assess their own capacity. For organisations trying to make improvements in their services, independent assessment may be more helpful than self-assessment in accurately determining service gaps. Overestimation of capacity may lead to failure to address important service needs.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Australia / epidemiology
  • Comorbidity
  • Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry)
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Mental Disorders / diagnosis
  • Mental Disorders / epidemiology*
  • Mental Disorders / psychology
  • Self Concept*
  • Substance Abuse Treatment Centers* / methods
  • Substance-Related Disorders / diagnosis
  • Substance-Related Disorders / epidemiology*
  • Substance-Related Disorders / psychology