ReviewThe patient2022
What Matters for Evaluating the Quality of Mental Healthcare? Identifying Important Aspects in Qualitative Focus Groups with Service Users and Frontline Mental Health Professionals.
Review in The patient, 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.
- Turning to Service Users for the Understanding of Current and Future Mental Health Services in the Development Process of Research and Practice: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Patients' Voices on Ketamine for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative Review of Qualitative Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Role Preferences in Medical Decision Making: Relevance and Implications for Health Preference Research.The patient · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating quality in mental healthcare is essential for ensuring a high-quality experience for service users (SUs). Policy-defined quality indicators, however, risk misalignment with the perspectives of SUs and mental healthcare professionals (MHPs). There is value in exploring how SUs and frontline MHPs think quality should be measured.
objectivesOur study objectives were to: (1) identify aspects that SUs and MHPs deem important for assessing quality in mental healthcare to help support attribute selection in a subsequent discrete choice experiment and (2) explore similarities and differences between SU and MHPs' views.
methodsSemi-structured qualitative focus groups (n = 6) were conducted with SUs (n = 14) and MHPs (n = 8) recruited from a UK National Health Service Trust. A topic guide was generated from a review of UK policy documents and existing data used to measure quality in mental healthcare in England. Transcripts were analysed using a framework analysis.
resultsTwenty-one subthemes were identified, grouped within six themes: accessing mental healthcare; assessing the benefits of care; co-ordinated approach; delivering mental healthcare; individualised care; and role of the person providing care. Themes such as person-centred care, capacity and resources, and receiving the right type of care received more coverage than others. Service users and MHPs displayed high concordance in their views, with minor areas of divergence.
conclusionsWe developed a comprehensive six-theme framework for understanding quality in mental healthcare from the viewpoint of the SU and frontline MHP, which can be used to help inform the selection of a meaningful set of quality indicators in mental health for research and practice.
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.