Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services

Background Measurement of what happens in mental health services is needed to describe services, identify variation in care provision and understand service outcomes. However, there is no consensus about appropriate methods or measures for content of care. Previous research has primarily used a sing...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 2011-03, Vol.46 (3), p.219-229
Hauptverfasser: Lloyd-Evans, B., Slade, M., Osborn, D. P., Skinner, R., Johnson, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 229
container_issue 3
container_start_page 219
container_title Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
container_volume 46
creator Lloyd-Evans, B.
Slade, M.
Osborn, D. P.
Skinner, R.
Johnson, S.
description Background Measurement of what happens in mental health services is needed to describe services, identify variation in care provision and understand service outcomes. However, there is no consensus about appropriate methods or measures for content of care. Previous research has primarily used a single information source and prioritised staff over patient perspectives on content of care. This study aims to enhance understanding of how to measure content of care by developing and evaluating four instruments, each using a different measurement method. Methods Development is described by four instruments—CaSPAR, CaRICE, CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P—which use researcher observation, staff-report and patient-report to measure the intensity and nature of care at services. Inter-rater reliability of CaRICE and CCCQ-S was investigated. Concordance between staff and patient perspectives was explored through assessing inter-rater agreement of CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P questionnaires. The convergence of data from the measures collected in an inpatient multi-site study was investigated. Results CaRICE demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.71). CCCQ-S inter-rater reliability was poor. Concordance between staff and patient reports was low: there was a trend for patients to report less care received than staff reported had been provided. Results from CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P exhibited divergence, indicating possible differences in patient, staff and researcher perspectives. Discussion Information about content of care should be sought as close as possible to the point of delivery. There may be differing, valid perspectives about care provided by services. Further development of methods to measure content of care is required. Meanwhile, a multi-methods approach should be adopted, which allows inclusion of different perspectives (specifically including the patient’s perspective) and triangulation of results from different measurement methods. CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P can provide multi-perspective content of care measurement in inpatient services.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_853226036</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A716460800</galeid><sourcerecordid>A716460800</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-bd10280da5794e3b9f07d415fa359ce686aa8998f108758c13db1f6e779c38d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kl2P1SAQhonRuMejP8Ab02iMV10HKAUuN-tnsok3emdCOHTY000LFdpN_PdSe3Sj0RDCMHneYeCFkKcUzimAfJ0BKJM1UChTs7q5R3a04bzWTIn7ZAe6xFKL5ow8yvkGALiW_CE5Y0CFYE27I1_f4C0OcerDdWVDV7k4TjatuxHnY-xy5WMqsc3Lz-x8xMKEGcNcRV85m7DqQwHCbIfqiHaYj1XGdNs7zI_JA2-HjE9O6558eff28-WH-urT-4-XF1e1a1o514eOAlPQWSF1g_ygPciuocJbLrTDVrXWKq2Vp6CkUI7y7kB9i1Jqx1VH-Z682upOKX5bMM9m7LPDYbAB45KNEpyxFnhbyOd_kTdxSaE0VyAmGZdMFujFBl3bAU0ffJyTdWtJcyFp27Sgykvuyfk_qDI6HPvyROj7kv9DQDeBSzHnhN5MqR9t-m4omNVPs_lpip9m9dM0RfPs1O9yGLH7rfhlYAFengCbnR18ssH1-Y7j5SswJgrHNi5Pq4-Y7i7-_9N_AD51tS8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>852723727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Lloyd-Evans, B. ; Slade, M. ; Osborn, D. P. ; Skinner, R. ; Johnson, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lloyd-Evans, B. ; Slade, M. ; Osborn, D. P. ; Skinner, R. ; Johnson, S.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Measurement of what happens in mental health services is needed to describe services, identify variation in care provision and understand service outcomes. However, there is no consensus about appropriate methods or measures for content of care. Previous research has primarily used a single information source and prioritised staff over patient perspectives on content of care. This study aims to enhance understanding of how to measure content of care by developing and evaluating four instruments, each using a different measurement method. Methods Development is described by four instruments—CaSPAR, CaRICE, CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P—which use researcher observation, staff-report and patient-report to measure the intensity and nature of care at services. Inter-rater reliability of CaRICE and CCCQ-S was investigated. Concordance between staff and patient perspectives was explored through assessing inter-rater agreement of CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P questionnaires. The convergence of data from the measures collected in an inpatient multi-site study was investigated. Results CaRICE demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.71). CCCQ-S inter-rater reliability was poor. Concordance between staff and patient reports was low: there was a trend for patients to report less care received than staff reported had been provided. Results from CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P exhibited divergence, indicating possible differences in patient, staff and researcher perspectives. Discussion Information about content of care should be sought as close as possible to the point of delivery. There may be differing, valid perspectives about care provided by services. Further development of methods to measure content of care is required. Meanwhile, a multi-methods approach should be adopted, which allows inclusion of different perspectives (specifically including the patient’s perspective) and triangulation of results from different measurement methods. CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P can provide multi-perspective content of care measurement in inpatient services.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0933-7954</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-9285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20155246</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SPPEEM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Analysis ; Biological and medical sciences ; College campuses ; Epidemiology ; Health care industry ; Health Care Surveys - methods ; Health Care Surveys - statistics & numerical data ; Health sciences ; Health services ; Health Services Research - methods ; Health Services Research - organization & administration ; Health Services Research - statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Measurement ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; Mental Disorders - therapy ; Mental health care ; Mental Health Services - organization & administration ; Mental Health Services - standards ; Methodology. Experimentation ; Methods ; Original Paper ; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data ; Patients ; Psychiatric hospital care ; Psychiatric hospitals ; Psychiatric services ; Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Quantitative psychology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Service development ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Techniques and methods]]></subject><ispartof>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2011-03, Vol.46 (3), p.219-229</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2011 Springer</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-bd10280da5794e3b9f07d415fa359ce686aa8998f108758c13db1f6e779c38d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-bd10280da5794e3b9f07d415fa359ce686aa8998f108758c13db1f6e779c38d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23928225$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20155246$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lloyd-Evans, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slade, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborn, D. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services</title><title>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</title><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Background Measurement of what happens in mental health services is needed to describe services, identify variation in care provision and understand service outcomes. However, there is no consensus about appropriate methods or measures for content of care. Previous research has primarily used a single information source and prioritised staff over patient perspectives on content of care. This study aims to enhance understanding of how to measure content of care by developing and evaluating four instruments, each using a different measurement method. Methods Development is described by four instruments—CaSPAR, CaRICE, CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P—which use researcher observation, staff-report and patient-report to measure the intensity and nature of care at services. Inter-rater reliability of CaRICE and CCCQ-S was investigated. Concordance between staff and patient perspectives was explored through assessing inter-rater agreement of CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P questionnaires. The convergence of data from the measures collected in an inpatient multi-site study was investigated. Results CaRICE demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.71). CCCQ-S inter-rater reliability was poor. Concordance between staff and patient reports was low: there was a trend for patients to report less care received than staff reported had been provided. Results from CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P exhibited divergence, indicating possible differences in patient, staff and researcher perspectives. Discussion Information about content of care should be sought as close as possible to the point of delivery. There may be differing, valid perspectives about care provided by services. Further development of methods to measure content of care is required. Meanwhile, a multi-methods approach should be adopted, which allows inclusion of different perspectives (specifically including the patient’s perspective) and triangulation of results from different measurement methods. CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P can provide multi-perspective content of care measurement in inpatient services.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>College campuses</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys - methods</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health Services Research - methods</subject><subject>Health Services Research - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Health Services Research - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - therapy</subject><subject>Mental health care</subject><subject>Mental Health Services - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Mental Health Services - standards</subject><subject>Methodology. Experimentation</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Psychiatric hospital care</subject><subject>Psychiatric hospitals</subject><subject>Psychiatric services</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Service development</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><issn>0933-7954</issn><issn>1433-9285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kl2P1SAQhonRuMejP8Ab02iMV10HKAUuN-tnsok3emdCOHTY000LFdpN_PdSe3Sj0RDCMHneYeCFkKcUzimAfJ0BKJM1UChTs7q5R3a04bzWTIn7ZAe6xFKL5ow8yvkGALiW_CE5Y0CFYE27I1_f4C0OcerDdWVDV7k4TjatuxHnY-xy5WMqsc3Lz-x8xMKEGcNcRV85m7DqQwHCbIfqiHaYj1XGdNs7zI_JA2-HjE9O6558eff28-WH-urT-4-XF1e1a1o514eOAlPQWSF1g_ygPciuocJbLrTDVrXWKq2Vp6CkUI7y7kB9i1Jqx1VH-Z682upOKX5bMM9m7LPDYbAB45KNEpyxFnhbyOd_kTdxSaE0VyAmGZdMFujFBl3bAU0ffJyTdWtJcyFp27Sgykvuyfk_qDI6HPvyROj7kv9DQDeBSzHnhN5MqR9t-m4omNVPs_lpip9m9dM0RfPs1O9yGLH7rfhlYAFengCbnR18ssH1-Y7j5SswJgrHNi5Pq4-Y7i7-_9N_AD51tS8</recordid><startdate>20110301</startdate><enddate>20110301</enddate><creator>Lloyd-Evans, B.</creator><creator>Slade, M.</creator><creator>Osborn, D. P.</creator><creator>Skinner, R.</creator><creator>Johnson, S.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110301</creationdate><title>Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services</title><author>Lloyd-Evans, B. ; Slade, M. ; Osborn, D. P. ; Skinner, R. ; Johnson, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-bd10280da5794e3b9f07d415fa359ce686aa8998f108758c13db1f6e779c38d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>College campuses</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys - methods</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health Services Research - methods</topic><topic>Health Services Research - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Health Services Research - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - therapy</topic><topic>Mental health care</topic><topic>Mental Health Services - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Mental Health Services - standards</topic><topic>Methodology. Experimentation</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Psychiatric hospital care</topic><topic>Psychiatric hospitals</topic><topic>Psychiatric services</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Service development</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lloyd-Evans, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slade, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborn, D. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lloyd-Evans, B.</au><au>Slade, M.</au><au>Osborn, D. P.</au><au>Skinner, R.</au><au>Johnson, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services</atitle><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle><stitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</stitle><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2011-03-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>219</spage><epage>229</epage><pages>219-229</pages><issn>0933-7954</issn><eissn>1433-9285</eissn><coden>SPPEEM</coden><abstract>Background Measurement of what happens in mental health services is needed to describe services, identify variation in care provision and understand service outcomes. However, there is no consensus about appropriate methods or measures for content of care. Previous research has primarily used a single information source and prioritised staff over patient perspectives on content of care. This study aims to enhance understanding of how to measure content of care by developing and evaluating four instruments, each using a different measurement method. Methods Development is described by four instruments—CaSPAR, CaRICE, CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P—which use researcher observation, staff-report and patient-report to measure the intensity and nature of care at services. Inter-rater reliability of CaRICE and CCCQ-S was investigated. Concordance between staff and patient perspectives was explored through assessing inter-rater agreement of CCCQ-S and CCCQ-P questionnaires. The convergence of data from the measures collected in an inpatient multi-site study was investigated. Results CaRICE demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.71). CCCQ-S inter-rater reliability was poor. Concordance between staff and patient reports was low: there was a trend for patients to report less care received than staff reported had been provided. Results from CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P exhibited divergence, indicating possible differences in patient, staff and researcher perspectives. Discussion Information about content of care should be sought as close as possible to the point of delivery. There may be differing, valid perspectives about care provided by services. Further development of methods to measure content of care is required. Meanwhile, a multi-methods approach should be adopted, which allows inclusion of different perspectives (specifically including the patient’s perspective) and triangulation of results from different measurement methods. CaSPAR, CaRICE and CCCQ-P can provide multi-perspective content of care measurement in inpatient services.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20155246</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0933-7954
ispartof Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2011-03, Vol.46 (3), p.219-229
issn 0933-7954
1433-9285
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_853226036
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Analysis
Biological and medical sciences
College campuses
Epidemiology
Health care industry
Health Care Surveys - methods
Health Care Surveys - statistics & numerical data
Health sciences
Health services
Health Services Research - methods
Health Services Research - organization & administration
Health Services Research - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Measurement
Medical research
Medical sciences
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Experimental
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental health care
Mental Health Services - organization & administration
Mental Health Services - standards
Methodology. Experimentation
Methods
Original Paper
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - methods
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data
Patients
Psychiatric hospital care
Psychiatric hospitals
Psychiatric services
Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Quantitative psychology
Reproducibility of Results
Service development
Surveys and Questionnaires
Techniques and methods
title Developing and comparing methods for measuring the content of care in mental health services
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T08%3A57%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Developing%20and%20comparing%20methods%20for%20measuring%20the%20content%20of%20care%20in%20mental%20health%20services&rft.jtitle=Social%20Psychiatry%20and%20Psychiatric%20Epidemiology&rft.au=Lloyd-Evans,%20B.&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=219&rft.epage=229&rft.pages=219-229&rft.issn=0933-7954&rft.eissn=1433-9285&rft.coden=SPPEEM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00127-010-0192-4&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA716460800%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=852723727&rft_id=info:pmid/20155246&rft_galeid=A716460800&rfr_iscdi=true