ArticleClinics and practice2024
Critical Analysis of Tools for Measuring Recovery-Oriented Practice in Mental Health Facilities: A Scoping Review.
Article in Clinics and practice, 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.
- Co-prioritization of mental health recovery outcomes and scales for community mental health centers in Peru.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo implement recovery-oriented practice, it is important to have instruments capable of evaluating such practice. A number of different questionnaires have been developed in recent years which measure recovery orientation in mental health services.
objectiveTo identify and analyze patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) reported in the literature that are related to recovery-oriented practice in mental health services. METHODOLOGY: This study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were carried out in the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline (via Pubmed), and SCOPUS databases and in grey literature repositories (Google Scholar, Opengrey, Dart-Europe, Teseo). Papers on recovery services for adults suffering from mental disorders (MDs) were included. Those focusing on addiction and intellectual disability care services were excluded.
resultsSixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The selected PREMs mainly identified recovery-oriented systems, treatment, community integration and support as the dimensions addressed most frequently in questionnaires. The average number of items included in the questionnaires was found to be 54. With regard to psychometric properties, 62% of the papers evaluated reliability (internal consistency) and 56% provided some kind of evidence of validity.
conclusionsThis review aims to give an overview of the existing instruments in the literature and to highlight the characteristics of each one of them. Several different PREMs exist which evaluate recovery-oriented practice. No instrument currently exists which could be described as a benchmark tool, but there are quite a few with good psychometric properties capable of producing data that are useful when evaluating clinical services.
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.