ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2012Pooled it
- Trial
- [Identification of joint-specific risk factors for risk adjustment in total knee arthroplasty-A modified Delphi process].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- e-Delphi study on European expert views about "cancer survivor" and related terminologies.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Participants' experiences with the Delphi method: an online evaluation of a three-round Delphi across German-speaking countries.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Development of routine-data-compatible quality indicators for the management of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip in ambulatory care: a RAND-modified Delphi consensus process.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The participation of lifeworld experts in Delphi processes: A reflection on method and practice.MethodsX · 2025Review
- How Delphi studies in the health sciences find consensus: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Content validation of a new measure of patient-reported barriers to antiretroviral therapy adherence, the I-Score: results from a Delphi study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Enhancing organizational readiness for implementation: constructing a typology of readiness-development strategies using a modified Delphi process.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- What are the main patient safety concerns of healthcare stakeholders: a mixed-method study of Web-based text.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Observational
- Delphi Technique in Health Sciences: A Map.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department cases: a mixed methods approach to systemize and analyze cases in Germany.European journal of public health · 2019Article
- Clinical indicators for common paediatric conditions: Processes, provenance and products of the CareTrack Kids study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Neurocognitive disorders: what are the prioritized caregiver needs? A consensus obtained by the Delphi method.BMC health services research · 2018Observational
- Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Perceptions of health managers and professionals about mental health and primary care integration in Rio de Janeiro: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile mental health is a core part of primary care, there are few validated quality measures and little relevant internationally published research. Consensus panel methods are a useful means of developing quality measures where evidence is sparse and/or opinions are diverse. However, little is known about the dynamics of consensus techniques and the factors that influence the judgements and ratings of panels and individual panelists.
objectives(1) To describe differences in panel ratings on the quality of primary mental health care services by patient, carer, professional and managerial panels within a Delphi procedure; and (2) to explore why different panels and panelists rate quality indicators of primary mental health care differently.
designTwo round postal Delphi technique and exploratory semi-structured interviews.
participants115 panelists across 11 panels. Eleven panelists were subsequently interviewed.
results87 of 334 indicators (26%) were rated face valid by all 11 panels. There was little disagreement within panel ratings but significant differences between panels. The GP panel rated the least number of indicators valid (n = 138, 41%) and carers the most (n = 304, 91%). The way in which panelists interpreted and conceptualised the indicators and their definition of quality of mental health care affected the way in which participants made their ratings.
conclusionsStakeholders in primary mental health care have diverse views of quality of care and these differences translate into how they rate quality indicators. Exploratory interviews suggest that ratings are influenced by past experience, expectations, definitions of quality of care, and perceived power relationships between stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.