ArticleBJPsych open2026
Measuring recovery in high-security patients: psychometric evaluation of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery and its utility to assess the forensic recovery journey.
Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundForensic mental health services need a reliable and repeatable outcome measure to assess the progression of self-rated recovery during the forensic journey. The Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) was developed in individuals with psychosis, and has been used to assess recovery in people with severe mental illness; however, its psychometric properties have not been studied in a forensic psychiatric cohort.
aimsThis study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the QPR in a sample of individuals who currently access, or formerly accessed, high-security psychiatric care, including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure and criterion validity.
methodPsychometric analysis was undertaken in a sample of 146 current or former high-security patients. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis examined the latent test structure. Non-parametric comparisons of QPR score indices tested for differences according to individuals' current setting (high-, medium- or low-security or open wards; community) as evidence of criterion validity.
resultsA unique two-factor structure related to self-actualisation/empowerment and growth/insight fit forensic patients' QPR responses. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate for QPR all-item scores for the original and shortened scales, as well as for the new forensic factor scores. QPR score indices differentiated patients by current setting (eta
conclusionsThe original QPR is recommended for use to assess recovery progress in a forensic psychiatric sample. Forensic patients' scores may be best represented using the unique two-factor structure identified.
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.