ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Development and Calibration of the PREMIUM Item Bank for Measuring Respect and Dignity for Patients with Severe Mental Illness.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the care experience during medical transition for transgender and gender diverse people in France: results from the PREMIUM study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Reducing Health Inequalities in Individuals with Severe Mental Disorders: Harnessing Real-World Data and Patient-Reported Measures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development of the PREMIUM Computerized Adaptive Testing for Measuring the Quality of Information Delivered to Patients with Severe Mental Illnesses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Calibration and Validation of a PREMIUM-DT Item Bank to Measure the Experience of Drug Therapy for Patients with Severe Mental Illness.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are paper-based, leading to a high burden for patients and care providers. The aim of this study was to (1) calibrate an item bank to measure patients' experience of respect and dignity for adult patients with serious mental illnesses and (2) develop computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to improve the use of this PREM in routine practice. Patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder were enrolled in this multicenter and cross-sectional study. Psychometric analyses were based on classical test and item response theories and included evaluations of unidimensionality, local independence, and monotonicity; calibration and evaluation of model fit; analyses of differential item functioning (DIF); testing of external validity; and finally, CAT development. A total of 458 patients participated in the study. Of the 24 items, 2 highly inter-correlated items were deleted. Factor analysis showed that the remaining items met the unidimensional assumption (RMSEA = 0.054, CFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.986). DIF analyses revealed no biases by sex, age, care setting, or diagnosis. External validity testing has generally supported our assumptions. CAT showed satisfactory accuracy and precision. This work provides a more accurate and flexible measure of patients' experience of respect and dignity than that obtained from standard questionnaires.
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.