ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2015
Evaluation of health promotion programmes in severe mental illness: theory and practice.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction in a State Reference Center of Bipolar Disorder.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2019Article
- Evaluation of health promotion programmes in severe mental illness: theory and practice.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2015Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health promotion programmes for patients with severe mental illness (HPP) are not uniformly evaluated. We discuss the evaluation of HPP in theory and practice, as a prerequisite for future uniform evaluation. We explored the expected outcome and mechanism of HPP in the current literature. Based on this theoretical exploration we selected measures assessing the expected outcome and mechanism in current practice. The individual properties of these measures were described. Based on our theoretical exploration the outcome of HPP can be expressed in several aspects of health. Health can be improved through several mechanisms. In the current evaluation of HPP only some of the expected outcomes were evaluated. The measures used for evaluation were not all representative for the constructs they should assess. Important aspects of HPP are currently not evaluated, based on a comparison between our theoretical exploration of expected outcome and mechanism and current practice. Additionally, not all measures in use are suitable for evaluation of HPP. Therefore, development and identification of suitable measures is necessary. Our framework offers valuable directions for the development of such measures and the future evaluation of HPP.
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.