ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Developing a core competency framework for community-based psychiatric rehabilitation practitioners in China: a modified Delphi study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompetency-based training is essential for building a qualified workforce in community-based psychiatric rehabilitation. Yet China lacks a contextually grounded competency framework to guide training, assessment, and service quality. This paper aims to develop a core competency framework tailored to community-based psychiatric rehabilitation practitioners in China.
methodsWe used a structured three-phase process: (1) a rapid literature review and conceptualization; (2) framework drafting; and (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 29 multidisciplinary Chinese experts to refine and achieve consensus on indicators. Expert engagement and consensus were assessed using standard metrics.
resultsEleven relevant international competency frameworks were reviewed to inform the initial drafting of the indicators. Following internal consultation and two rounds of Delphi survey, the coefficients of variation for the importance ratings of the indicators ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (Round 1) and 0.00 to 0.20 (Round 2), indicating strong consensus among the experts. The final framework consists of 55 secondary indicators organized under 6 primary indicators: attitudes, beliefs, and values; ethical principles; professionalism; learning and development; basic knowledge; and basic skills - forming the acronym AEPLKS (pronounced "apex").
conclusionsThe framework not only aligns with international standards for person-centered, recovery-oriented, and ethical practice but is also culturally adapted to the Chinese context. Given workforce shortages and the absence of similar frameworks in many low- and middle-income countries, it may serve as a reference for developing contextually appropriate community-based psychiatric rehabilitation competency frameworks in other settings. Nonetheless, given that the AEPLKS framework is a preliminary, expert-derived one, further empirical validation will be required before its application in certification or formal performance assessment.
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.