ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021
Development of a patient rated scale for mental health global state for use during humanitarian interventions.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between severity of symptoms and minimum mental health treatment duration in humanitarian contexts: a retrospective observational study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Severity, symptomatology, and treatment duration for mental health disorders: a retrospective analysis from a conflict-affected region of northern Nigeria.Conflict and health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe present the results of a cross-cultural validation of the Mental Health Global State (MHGS) scale for adults and adolescents (<14 years old).
methodsWe performed two independent studies using mixed methods among 103 patients in Hebron, Occupied Palestinian Territories and 106 in Cauca, Colombia. The MHGS was analyzed psychometrically, sensitivity and specificity, ability to detect clinically meaningful change, compared to the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale (CGI-S). Principal component analysis was used to reduce the number of questions after data collection.
resultsThe scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha score of 0.80 in both settings. Test retest reliability was high, ICC 0.70 (95% CI [0.41-0.85]) in Hebron and 0.87 (95% CI [0.76-0.93]) in Cauca; inter-rater reliability was 0.70 (95% CI [0.42-0.85]) in Hebron and 0.76 (95% CI [0.57-0.88]) in Cauca. Psychometric properties were also good, and the tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 85% in Hebron and 100% in Cauca, with corresponding specificity of 80% and 79%, when compared to CGI-S.
conclusionsThe MHGS showed promising results to assess global mental health thereby providing an additional easy to use tool in humanitarian interventions. Additional work should focus on validation in at least one more context, to adhere to best practices in transcultural validation.
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.