Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41416115›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin open2025

The First Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale as a Measure of Quality of Care.

Su Lynn Tan, Julia Kirkham, Donald Addington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Su Lynn TanDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2R 0X7, Canada.
Julia KirkhamDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2R 0X7, Canada.
Donald AddingtonDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2R 0X7, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fidelity scales are designed to assess the degree to which a program delivers the core components of evidence-based programs. The degree to which scales can predict outcomes-its predictive validity-is an important psychometric property. Fidelity scales have multiple applications, including in quality assurance and improvement. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree to which the First Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS) assesses the 6 domains of quality of care (QoC) described in the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s QoC framework. Study Design: A quality thematic analysis using a theoretical (deductive) approach was used to categorize the 36 items of the FEPS-FS according to the framework for evaluating QoC outlined by the IOM. Two coders independently reviewed and coded each item in duplicate. Frequency counts were used to summarize the characteristics of the FEPS-FS items across the IOM's quality domains. Study Results: Most FEPS-FS items reflect effectiveness (47.2%), efficiency (19.59%), and patient-centeredness (18.56%). Safety (7.22%), timeliness (5.15%), and equity (2.06%) were relatively underrepresented. Conclusions: The FEPS-FS can be considered as a measure of QoC that reflects all the IOM domains. As expected for a fidelity scale, the largest number of items assess effectiveness, while safety, timeliness, and equity were represented by fewer items. We identified potential items from the literature that could be used to increase the proportion of items in underrepresented quality domains in future iterations of the FEPS-FS or other fidelity scales.

Indexed as

psychosesquality of carescales/outcomes and performance measurementschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID41416115
PMCPMC12708340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.