ArticleBMJ open2018
Inpatients' assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), coercion, and mental health outcomes in psychiatric inpatient care: a national mixed-methods study comparing immigrant and majority populations.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Case-mix Adjustment of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs): a rapid review to inform benchmarking practices across inpatient health centers in Switzerland.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- The outpatient experience questionnaire for child and adolescent mental health services: reliability and validity following a nationwide survey.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Norwegian adaptation of the Quality in Psychiatric Care - In-Patient instrument: psychometric properties and factor structure.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A Scoping Review of Adult Inpatient Satisfaction with Mental Health Services.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reliability and validity of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PIPEQ-CEM).BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Family involvement and patient-experienced improvement and satisfaction with care: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Danish psychiatric hospitals.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to assess the importance of different types of predictors for patient-reported outcome, both background factors at the patient level and healthcare predictors related to structure and processes of healthcare.
designCross-sectional patient experience survey.
settingAll 280 secondary care institutions in Norway providing inpatient care for adult psychiatric patients.
participants1683 inpatients responded to the questionnaire on-site (73.4%). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome scale of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire-On-Site was the primary dependent variable. The scale consists of five items relating to overall patient satisfaction, benefit of treatment and patient enablement. Regressions were used to assess predictors, for all patients and for five different patient groups reported by the patients including anxiety/depression, drug-related problems and eating disorders.
resultsMultilevel linear regression for all patients showed that background factors related to overall current state, self-perceived mental health before admission and admission type were the most important predictors for patient-assessed outcome. Poor current state was associated with poor assessment of outcome (estimate: 8.64, p<0.001), poor health before admission was associated with better outcome (estimate: -6.89, p<0.001) and patients with urgent admission had poorer scores on the outcome scale (estimate: 4.40, p<0.001). A range of structure and healthcare variables were related to patient-assessed outcome, the most important being clinicians/personnel understanding your situation, treatment adjusted to your situation and adequate information about mental health condition.
conclusionsSelf-perceived mental health before admission, current overall state and type of admission were the most important background factors for patient-assessed outcome. The most important structure and process variables were related to patient-centred interaction. The background factors should be considered in case-mix adjustments of quality indicators, while the process variables could be used as focus areas in work aiming to improve patients' assessment of outcome.
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.