ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Evaluating the psychometric properties of three WHO instruments to assess knowledge about human rights, attitudes toward persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, and practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion in mental health.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the efficacy of the WHO QualityRights e-training in promoting the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities: a cluster randomised controlled trial in Ghana.BMJ global health · 2025Trial
- QualityRights in medical education to reduce coercion in mental health in Colombia: instrument validation and quasi-experimental study.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- International Expert Priorities for Promoting Recovery and Coercion-Free Practices in Psychosocial Disability: A Delphi Study.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- Commentary: Perceptions of care quality and human rights in Italian outpatient facilities during and after the pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Integrated multimethod analysis of miners' safety behavior and risk interaction for practical applications.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Development and Preliminary Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Perceptions on the Implementation of UN CRPD Principles Concerning Social Inclusion and Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Municipalities.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2025Article
- Reliability and Factor Structure of the Well-Being and Respect for Human Rights Questionnaire in Measuring Caregivers' Perception.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Instruments to assess the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals' practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion are either missing or lack evaluation of their validity and reliability. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of three instruments developed to fill this gap in the literature, the World Health Organization's QualityRights (WHO QR) Knowledge questionnaire, the WHO QR Attitudes questionnaire, and the WHO QR Practices questionnaire. Methods: A sample of participants was recruited and completed an online survey. Content validity and face validity were assessed for the three questionnaires. Based on the characteristics of the questionnaires, different approaches were used to assess their construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis, known group validity, and convergent and divergent validity). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and test re-test reliability using Pearson's and Spearman's r coefficients. Results: The analyses conducted indicate that the three questionnaires are valid and reliable instruments to evaluate the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals' practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion. Conclusion: This finding lends support to the use of these instruments both within mental health services and in the general population for a better understanding of current knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to a human rights-based approach to mental health in mental health services and the community.
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.