Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32270290›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2021

Quality indicators for mental healthcare in the Danube region: results from a pilot feasibility study.

Wolfgang Gaebel, I Lehmann, D Chisholm, H Hinkov, C Höschl, G Kapócs, T Kurimay, D Lecic Tosevski, M Milosavljevic, V Nakov and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Mortality in people with mental disorders in Poland: A nationwide, register-based cohort study.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Wolfgang Gaebel *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, LVR-Klinikum Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University, Bergische Landstraße 2, 40629, Düsseldorf, Germany. Wolfgang.Gaebel@lvr.de.
I Lehmann *LVR-Institute for Healthcare Research, Cologne, Germany.
D ChisholmWHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
H HinkovNCPHA-National Center of Public Health and Analyses, Sofia, Bulgaria.
C HöschlNational Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czech Republic.
G KapócsDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Buda Family Centred Mental Health Centre, Teaching Department of Semmelweis University, Saint John Hospital, Budapest, Hungary.
T KurimayDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Buda Family Centred Mental Health Centre, Teaching Department of Semmelweis University, Saint John Hospital, Budapest, Hungary.
D Lecic TosevskiSerbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia.
M MilosavljevicInstitute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
V NakovMental Health, National Center of Mental Health and Analyses, Sofia, Bulgaria.
P WinklerDepartment of Social Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czech Republic.
J ZielasekLVR-Institute for Healthcare Research, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) ID 01DS17020World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality indicators are vital for monitoring the transformation of institution-based mental health services towards the provision of person-centered mental healthcare. While several mental healthcare quality indicators have been identified as relevant and valid, their actual usability and utility for routine monitoring healthcare quality over time is significantly determined by the availability and trustworthiness of the underlying data. In this feasibility study, quality indicators that have been systematically identified for use in the Danube region countries of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Serbia were measured on the basis of existing mental healthcare data in the four countries. Data were collected retrospectively by means of the best available, most standardized, trustworthy, and up-to-date data in each country. Out of 21 proposed quality indicators, 18 could be measured in Hungary, 17 could be measured in Bulgaria and in the Czech Republic, and 8 could be measured in Serbia. The results demonstrate that a majority of quality indicators can be measured in most of the countries by means of already existing data, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of quality measurement and regular quality monitoring. However, data availability and usability are scattered across countries and care sectors, which leads to variations in the quality of the quality indicators themselves. Making the planning and outputs of national mental healthcare reforms more transparent and evidence-based requires (trans-)national standardization of healthcare quality data, their routine availability and standardized assessment, and the regular reporting of quality indicators.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesQuality Indicators, Health CareEuropeFeasibility StudiesHumansPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesMental healthcareMental healthcare reformQualityQuality assuranceQuality indicator

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.