Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42741081›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

The development and evaluation of the Patient-Controlled Admission Fidelity Checklist.

Maria Smitmanis Lyle, Anna Björkdahl, Clara Hellner, Sigrid Salomonsson, Alexander Rozental

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Maria Smitmanis LyleCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna BjörkdahlCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Clara HellnerCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sigrid SalomonssonCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alexander RozentalCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-Controlled Admission (PCA) is an intervention aimed at increasing patient autonomy by allowing patients to admit themselves to psychiatric inpatient stays without physician assessment or staff gatekeeping. PCA is intended for patients with recurrent need of inpatient care, potentially those who would benefit from increased influence over the admission process. Studies suggest PCA may reduce involuntary care and improve patient empowerment. However, findings are difficult to interpret due to variation in implementation, lack of fidelity assessments, and the absence of an objective fidelity instrument. Aim: To develop and evaluate a fidelity measure for PCA capturing core standards of fidelity across clinical settings while remaining acceptable and user-friendly in routine practice. Methods: The development process of the fidelity instrument for chart review followed a five-step method: reviewing existing measures, analysing intervention components, drafting a fidelity checklist and guidelines, obtaining expert feedback, and piloting and refinement. Interrater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa and percentage agreement, and acceptability and user-friendliness was evaluated in a routine clinical setting using Likert-scale questions. Results: The Patient-Controlled Admission Fidelity Checklist (PCA-FC) consists of three parts: A1 (PCA as part of the care plan), A2 (the PCA-agreement), and B (PCA inpatient care). Item-level percentage agreement ranged from 90% to 100%, with several items demonstrating complete agreement. Fleiss' Kappa coefficients ranged from non-estimable variables for items with no response variability to perfect agreement (κ =1.00). The PCA-FC demonstrated strong acceptability and usability indicating that the checklist was perceived as easy to understand, complete, and apply in practice. Fidelity scores aggregated at the organisational level showed variation, with the lowest adherence observed in inpatient care items. Conclusion: The PCA-FC demonstrated high reliability for assessment of PCA fidelity through chart review. It may serve as a useful tool for implementation monitoring, clinical quality assurance, and research on effectiveness of PCA in psychiatric settings. However, fidelity is a multidimensional construct, and the PCA-FC represents an initial step in fidelity assessment that should be complemented by additional methods and further validation.

Indexed as

implementation fidelityinstrument developmentmental healthPatient-Controlled Admissionpsychiatric care

Identifiers

PMID42741081
PMCPMC13572607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.