心理健康机构中以康复为导向的实践测量工具的批判性分析:范围审查。

IF 1.7 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinics and Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.3390/clinpract14060181
Josè Antonio Garrido-Cervera, María Isabel Ruiz-Granados, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio José Sánchez-Guarnido
{"title":"心理健康机构中以康复为导向的实践测量工具的批判性分析:范围审查。","authors":"Josè Antonio Garrido-Cervera, María Isabel Ruiz-Granados, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio José Sánchez-Guarnido","doi":"10.3390/clinpract14060181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To implement recovery-oriented practice, it is important to have instruments capable of evaluating such practice. A number of different questionnaires have been developed in recent years which measure recovery orientation in mental health services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and analyze patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) reported in the literature that are related to recovery-oriented practice in mental health services.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were carried out in the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline (via Pubmed), and SCOPUS databases and in grey literature repositories (Google Scholar, Opengrey, Dart-Europe, Teseo). Papers on recovery services for adults suffering from mental disorders (MDs) were included. Those focusing on addiction and intellectual disability care services were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The selected PREMs mainly identified recovery-oriented systems, treatment, community integration and support as the dimensions addressed most frequently in questionnaires. The average number of items included in the questionnaires was found to be 54. With regard to psychometric properties, 62% of the papers evaluated reliability (internal consistency) and 56% provided some kind of evidence of validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review aims to give an overview of the existing instruments in the literature and to highlight the characteristics of each one of them. Several different PREMs exist which evaluate recovery-oriented practice. No instrument currently exists which could be described as a benchmark tool, but there are quite a few with good psychometric properties capable of producing data that are useful when evaluating clinical services.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"14 6","pages":"2313-2328"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Analysis of Tools for Measuring Recovery-Oriented Practice in Mental Health Facilities: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Josè Antonio Garrido-Cervera, María Isabel Ruiz-Granados, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio José Sánchez-Guarnido\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/clinpract14060181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To implement recovery-oriented practice, it is important to have instruments capable of evaluating such practice. A number of different questionnaires have been developed in recent years which measure recovery orientation in mental health services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and analyze patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) reported in the literature that are related to recovery-oriented practice in mental health services.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were carried out in the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline (via Pubmed), and SCOPUS databases and in grey literature repositories (Google Scholar, Opengrey, Dart-Europe, Teseo). Papers on recovery services for adults suffering from mental disorders (MDs) were included. Those focusing on addiction and intellectual disability care services were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The selected PREMs mainly identified recovery-oriented systems, treatment, community integration and support as the dimensions addressed most frequently in questionnaires. The average number of items included in the questionnaires was found to be 54. With regard to psychometric properties, 62% of the papers evaluated reliability (internal consistency) and 56% provided some kind of evidence of validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review aims to give an overview of the existing instruments in the literature and to highlight the characteristics of each one of them. Several different PREMs exist which evaluate recovery-oriented practice. No instrument currently exists which could be described as a benchmark tool, but there are quite a few with good psychometric properties capable of producing data that are useful when evaluating clinical services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"2313-2328\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14060181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14060181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:要实施以康复为导向的实践,必须要有能够评估这种实践的工具。近年来,已经开发出了许多不同的调查问卷,用于测量心理健康服务中的康复导向:确定并分析文献中报道的与心理健康服务中以康复为导向的实践相关的患者报告体验测量法(PREMs):本研究采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的方法进行范围界定审查。在 Web of Science、CINAHL、Medline(通过 Pubmed)和 SCOPUS 数据库以及灰色文献库(Google Scholar、Opengrey、Dart-Europe、Teseo)中进行了检索。有关精神障碍(MD)成人康复服务的论文均被收录。结果:16 篇论文符合纳入标准:结果:16 篇论文符合纳入标准。入选的 PREMs 主要将以康复为导向的系统、治疗、社区融合和支持作为问卷中最常涉及的方面。问卷中包含的项目平均为 54 个。在心理测量特性方面,62%的论文评估了可靠性(内部一致性),56%的论文提供了某种有效性证据:本综述旨在概述文献中的现有工具,并强调每种工具的特点。目前已有几种不同的 PREM,对以康复为导向的实践进行评估。目前还没有一种工具可以被称为基准工具,但有相当多的工具具有良好的心理测量特性,能够产生对临床服务评估有用的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Critical Analysis of Tools for Measuring Recovery-Oriented Practice in Mental Health Facilities: A Scoping Review.

Background: To implement recovery-oriented practice, it is important to have instruments capable of evaluating such practice. A number of different questionnaires have been developed in recent years which measure recovery orientation in mental health services.

Objective: To identify and analyze patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) reported in the literature that are related to recovery-oriented practice in mental health services.

Methodology: This study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were carried out in the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline (via Pubmed), and SCOPUS databases and in grey literature repositories (Google Scholar, Opengrey, Dart-Europe, Teseo). Papers on recovery services for adults suffering from mental disorders (MDs) were included. Those focusing on addiction and intellectual disability care services were excluded.

Results: Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The selected PREMs mainly identified recovery-oriented systems, treatment, community integration and support as the dimensions addressed most frequently in questionnaires. The average number of items included in the questionnaires was found to be 54. With regard to psychometric properties, 62% of the papers evaluated reliability (internal consistency) and 56% provided some kind of evidence of validity.

Conclusions: This review aims to give an overview of the existing instruments in the literature and to highlight the characteristics of each one of them. Several different PREMs exist which evaluate recovery-oriented practice. No instrument currently exists which could be described as a benchmark tool, but there are quite a few with good psychometric properties capable of producing data that are useful when evaluating clinical services.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Extraperitoneal Open Radical Cystectomy: A New Standard in Frail Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer? Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection: From Basics to Clinical and Nutritional Management. Clinical Acceptance of Digitally Produced Zirconia and Metal Post and Cores, Based on the Impression Method. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Parents Regarding Ophthalmological Screening of Preschool-Aged Children in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Running Cadence and the Influence on Frontal Plane Knee Deviations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1