ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2024
Examining the content validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Functioning for Mental Illness-Subjective Version (CAMI-S) with reference to the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Examining the content validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Functioning for Mental Illness-Subjective Version (CAMI-S) with reference to the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To support the achievement of life goals and social participation of persons with mental illness, based on the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), we generated items, identified domains, and examined the content validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Functioning for Mental Illness-Subjective Version (CAMI-S). The purpose was to assess patients' strengths and weaknesses by incorporating the patient and public involvement perspective. Methods: Focus group interviews on the items to be included were conducted with Group A. A draft scale was constructed by extracting articles mentioning factors for social participation and recovery for each ICF component from PubMed. Group B participants rated themselves using the draft and highlighted items they considered inappropriate. Experts then rated the importance of the items through the Delphi method. Lastly, Group C participants evaluated whether the draft scale would help in understanding their strengths and weaknesses. Results: The interviews revealed subjective experience items. The draft scale had 81 items (physical and mental functions, 10; activities, 23; participation, 24; environment, 12; individuals, six; and subjective experience, six). Through the Delphi method, the number of items was reduced to 34 in six domains. Most participants ( Conclusion: The CAMI-S helped participants ascertain patients' strengths and weaknesses. Its reliability and validity will be verified through a large-scale survey in the future.
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.