Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102065›Full record

ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025

Preliminary evaluation of a questionnaire for assessing fidelity of early intervention for psychosis services.

Miriam Kinkaid, Rebecca Fuhrer, Stephen McGowan, Ashok Malla

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Miriam KinkaidDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Rebecca Fuhrer *Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. rebecca.fuhrer@mcgill.ca.
Stephen McGowanNHS England, South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Kendray Hospital, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Ashok Malla *Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFast, easy, and cost-effective methods are needed for fidelity assessment, quality improvement initiatives, and population-based studies in Early Intervention for Psychosis (EIP) services. Having an online questionnaire assessing the fidelity of EIP services, completed by staff self-reports, and having evidence of reliability and validity, could fill that gap. We assess the reliability and validity of the Early Intervention for Psychosis Services Fidelity Questionnaire (EIPS-FQ), developed in Part I of this set of papers.

methodsA convenience sample of 10 EIP teams in England was used. Two staff members completed online questionnaires assessing recent and past fidelity. An external rater completed the same questionnaire for the two time periods, using a random sample of patient medical records, program documentation, and interviews with staff. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, absolute mean differences, and the ICC.

resultsThe fidelity score measuring recent fidelity ranged from 54.2 to 82.7, out of a possible 100. The ICC assessing reliability of the fidelity score was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.0-0.81). The ICCs for the fidelity sub-category scores ranged from 0 to 0.76. Two sub-categories, comprehensive assessments and family involvement and intervention, had low ICCs, regardless of period examined.

conclusionsThis first attempt at validating the EIPS-FQ has demonstrated that the reliability of the EIPS-FQ is moderate/low, and therefore requires modification prior to use. The next iteration of the fidelity questionnaire will clarify or remove items which had very low reliability and add evidence-based components not identified in the Delphi exercise.

Indexed as

Early Medical InterventionMental Health ServicesPsychotic DisordersAdultEnglandFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesEarly interventionFidelityInter-rater reliabilityPsychosisQuestionnaire

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.