ArticleBMC health services research2026
The Turkish version of the quality in psychiatric care-inpatient scale: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
backgroundEffective mental health services require high-quality psychiatric inpatient care. To evaluate care from patients’ perspective, culturally validated tools are needed that also reflect local healthcare and psychiatric nursing services. This aim of this study was to validate the Turkish version of Quality in Psychiatric Care-Inpatient scale, to support its use by psychiatric nurses in assessing the quality of inpatient care.
methodsThis methodological study included 280 psychiatric inpatients from two hospitals. The scale was translated, back-translated and reviewed by experts following Beaton et al.’s adaptation framework and the Consensus-based Standards for Selecting Health Status Measurement Instruments guidelines. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were assessed.
resultsThe Turkish scale comprised 22 items across four sub-dimensions, explaining 53.5% of the total variance. The alpha coefficient was 0.86, demonstrating high internal consistency. Fit indices supported the four-factor model.
conclusionsThe scale demonstrated promising psychometric properties and is suitable for psychiatric inpatient nursing practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.