ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Rasch analysis of a patient-reported outcome measure for self-perceived health among psychiatric patients in Denmark.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable and necessary tools for establishing and maintaining patient-centred healthcare. The PRO-Psychiatry initiative was primarily initiated to support the patient's voice in treatment decision-making and secondarily to monitor patient-perceived quality of care. The result of the initiative is a patient-reported instrument developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. We aimed to validate the PROM developed for measuring self-perceived health among psychiatric patients in North Denmark Region, in terms of internal consistency, criterion validity and responsiveness.
methodPatients in contact with a psychiatric hospital in the North Denmark Region from September 2018 to March 2021 were included in the study. The PROM constitutes a scale of 17 items covering various aspects of self-perceived health including well-being (7 items), lack of well-being (5 items) and social functioning (5 items), where the former domain entails the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. The potential range of the total scale score is 0-85. We applied McDonald's omega, average inter-item correlation (AIIC) and differential item functioning (DIF). In addition, we used mixed effects analyses to estimate temporal correlations. The instrument was compared with self-rated overall mental and psychiatric health.
resultsThe patient population consisted of 1132 unique patients and a total of 2476 responses corresponding to one response per patient pathway. McDonald's omega was found to be 0.92 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), while the AIIC was found to be 0.42 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.44). For DIF, the largest systematic variation resulted in a maximum difference of 2.3 points on the total score when adjusting for the latent trait and was found when comparing initial measurements with follow-up measurements. The correlation between the total score and the outcomes regarding overall physical and mental health was 0.52 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.56) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.76). Similar correlations were found for the corresponding changes over time.
conclusionThe scale showed high consistency and little systematic variation between the comparison groups. The concurrent correlations and analyses of responsiveness coincided with the prespecified hypotheses. Overall, we deem the Danish PRO-Psychiatry instrument to possess suitable psychometric properties for measuring self-perceived health among a psychiatric population.
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.