• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估精神卫生保健质量的关键因素是什么?通过与服务使用者和精神卫生一线专业人员的定性焦点小组确定重要方面。

What Matters for Evaluating the Quality of Mental Healthcare? Identifying Important Aspects in Qualitative Focus Groups with Service Users and Frontline Mental Health Professionals.

机构信息

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

出版信息

Patient. 2022 Nov;15(6):669-678. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00580-0. Epub 2022 May 6.

DOI:10.1007/s40271-022-00580-0
PMID:35513764
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9585007/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evaluating quality in mental healthcare is essential for ensuring a high-quality experience for service users (SUs). Policy-defined quality indicators, however, risk misalignment with the perspectives of SUs and mental healthcare professionals (MHPs). There is value in exploring how SUs and frontline MHPs think quality should be measured.

OBJECTIVES

Our study objectives were to: (1) identify aspects that SUs and MHPs deem important for assessing quality in mental healthcare to help support attribute selection in a subsequent discrete choice experiment and (2) explore similarities and differences between SU and MHPs' views.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative focus groups (n = 6) were conducted with SUs (n = 14) and MHPs (n = 8) recruited from a UK National Health Service Trust. A topic guide was generated from a review of UK policy documents and existing data used to measure quality in mental healthcare in England. Transcripts were analysed using a framework analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subthemes were identified, grouped within six themes: accessing mental healthcare; assessing the benefits of care; co-ordinated approach; delivering mental healthcare; individualised care; and role of the person providing care. Themes such as person-centred care, capacity and resources, and receiving the right type of care received more coverage than others. Service users and MHPs displayed high concordance in their views, with minor areas of divergence.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a comprehensive six-theme framework for understanding quality in mental healthcare from the viewpoint of the SU and frontline MHP, which can be used to help inform the selection of a meaningful set of quality indicators in mental health for research and practice.

摘要

背景

评估精神卫生保健的质量对于确保服务使用者(SU)获得高质量的体验至关重要。然而,政策定义的质量指标可能与 SU 和精神卫生保健专业人员(MHP)的观点不一致。探索 SU 和一线 MHP 如何看待质量应该如何衡量具有重要价值。

目的

我们的研究目的是:(1)确定 SU 和 MHP 认为对于评估精神卫生保健质量重要的方面,以帮助支持随后离散选择实验中的属性选择;(2)探讨 SU 和 MHP 观点之间的相似之处和差异。

方法

从英国国家卫生服务信托机构招募 SU(n = 14)和 MHP(n = 8)进行半结构化定性焦点小组(n = 6)。从英国政策文件和用于衡量英格兰精神卫生保健质量的现有数据的综述中生成了一个主题指南。使用框架分析对转录本进行分析。

结果

确定了 21 个子主题,分为六个主题:获得精神卫生保健;评估护理的益处;协调的方法;提供精神卫生保健;个性化护理;以及提供护理的人的角色。诸如以患者为中心的护理、能力和资源以及接受正确类型的护理等主题比其他主题得到了更多的关注。SU 和 MHP 的观点高度一致,仅有少数分歧。

结论

我们从 SU 和一线 MHP 的角度制定了一个全面的六个主题框架,用于理解精神卫生保健中的质量,这可以帮助为精神卫生研究和实践中选择有意义的质量指标集提供信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd09/9585007/381863fcbeae/40271_2022_580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd09/9585007/381863fcbeae/40271_2022_580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd09/9585007/381863fcbeae/40271_2022_580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
What Matters for Evaluating the Quality of Mental Healthcare? Identifying Important Aspects in Qualitative Focus Groups with Service Users and Frontline Mental Health Professionals.评估精神卫生保健质量的关键因素是什么?通过与服务使用者和精神卫生一线专业人员的定性焦点小组确定重要方面。
Patient. 2022 Nov;15(6):669-678. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00580-0. Epub 2022 May 6.
2
Exploring mental health professionals' practice in relation to smoke-free policy within a mental health trust: a qualitative study using the COM-B model of behaviour.探索精神卫生专业人员在精神卫生信托机构中实施无烟政策的实践:使用行为的 COM-B 模型进行的定性研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 4;19(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2029-3.
3
Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population.重视精神卫生保健服务质量:一项从精神卫生保健服务使用者、精神卫生保健专业人员和一般人群中得出偏好的离散选择实验。
Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114885. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114885. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
4
Experiences of mental health professionals and patients in the use of pro re nata medication in acute adult mental healthcare settings: a systematic review.心理健康专业人员和患者在急性成人精神卫生保健环境中按需用药的经验:一项系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Oct;14(10):209-250. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003167.
5
The impact of service user's suicide on mental health professionals.服务使用者自杀对心理健康专业人员的影响。
Ir J Psychol Med. 2022 Mar;39(1):74-84. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2019.4. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
6
EQUIP training the trainers: an evaluation of a training programme for service users and carers involved in training mental health professionals in user-involved care planning.EQUIP培训培训者:对一项针对参与精神卫生专业人员用户参与式护理计划培训的服务使用者和护理者的培训项目的评估。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017 Aug;24(6):367-376. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12361. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
7
Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals.探索在英国心理健康服务中增强共同决策(SDM)工具的潜在实施情况:对服务使用者、护理人员和专业人员观点的定性探索。
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017 Jun 28;11:42. doi: 10.1186/s13033-017-0149-z. eCollection 2017.
8
Service user involvement: impact and participation: a survey of service user and staff perspectives.服务使用者参与:影响与参与度:一项关于服务使用者和工作人员观点的调查
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct 25;14:491. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0491-7.
9
Is it time to abandon care planning in mental health services? A qualitative study exploring the views of professionals, service users and carers.是否到了放弃精神卫生服务中的照护计划的时候了?一项探索专业人员、服务使用者和照护者观点的定性研究。
Health Expect. 2018 Jun;21(3):597-605. doi: 10.1111/hex.12650. Epub 2017 Nov 16.
10
Mental health professionals' perceptions, judgements and decision-making practices regarding the use of electronic cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction intervention in mental healthcare: A qualitative focus group study.心理健康专业人员对在精神卫生保健中使用电子烟作为一种烟草危害减少干预措施的认知、判断和决策实践:一项定性焦点小组研究。
Addict Behav Rep. 2019 May 2;10:100184. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100184. eCollection 2019 Dec.

引用本文的文献

1
What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study.消费者和护理人员在精神卫生保健评估测量方面的优先事项是什么?一项 Q 方法学研究的结果。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Nov 11;22(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01239-y.
2
Role Preferences in Medical Decision Making: Relevance and Implications for Health Preference Research.医学决策中的角色偏好:对健康偏好研究的相关性和意义。
Patient. 2024 Jan;17(1):3-12. doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00649-4. Epub 2023 Oct 24.

本文引用的文献

1
Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population.重视精神卫生保健服务质量:一项从精神卫生保健服务使用者、精神卫生保健专业人员和一般人群中得出偏好的离散选择实验。
Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114885. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114885. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
2
Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.理解影响医生和护理人员关于儿科药物难治性癫痫神经技术决策的属性:支持离散选择实验开发的形成性定性研究。
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):219-232. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00544-w. Epub 2021 Aug 25.
3
Identifying Unmet Care Needs and Important Treatment Attributes in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Qualitative Interview Study.识别治疗中未满足的需求和重要治疗属性:一项关于化脓性汗腺炎管理的定性访谈研究。
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):207-218. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00539-7. Epub 2021 Aug 9.
4
What is needed for Trauma Informed Mental Health Services in Australia? Perspectives of clinicians and managers.澳大利亚创伤知情心理健康服务需要什么?临床医生和管理者的观点。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021 Feb;30(1):72-82. doi: 10.1111/inm.12811. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
5
'Meet Me Where I Am': Mental health service users' perspectives on the desirable qualities of a mental health nurse.“在我所在之处与我相遇”:精神健康服务使用者对精神健康护士理想素质的看法。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021 Feb;30(1):136-147. doi: 10.1111/inm.12768. Epub 2020 Aug 17.
6
"It means so much for me to have a choice": a qualitative study providing first-person perspectives on medication-free treatment in mental health care.“对我来说,有一个选择是非常重要的”:一项关于精神卫生保健中无药物治疗的第一人称视角的定性研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 8;20(1):399. doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02770-2.
7
Finding Out What Matters in Decision-Making Related to Genomics and Personalized Medicine in Pediatric Oncology: Developing Attributes to Include in a Discrete Choice Experiment.探寻儿科肿瘤学中与基因组学和个性化医学相关的决策的重要因素:开发离散选择实验中应包含的属性。
Patient. 2020 Jun;13(3):347-361. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00411-0.
8
User participation and shared decision-making in adolescent mental healthcare: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives.青少年心理健康护理中的患者参与和共同决策:一项关于医疗保健专业人员观点的定性研究
Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2020 Jan 18;14:2. doi: 10.1186/s13034-020-0310-3. eCollection 2020.
9
Key dimensions of collaboration quality in mental health care service networks.精神卫生保健服务网络中协作质量的关键维度。
J Interprof Care. 2021 Jan-Feb;35(1):28-36. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2019.1709425. Epub 2020 Jan 13.
10
Effective nurse-patient relationships in mental health care: A systematic review of interventions to improve the therapeutic alliance.心理健康护理中有效的护患关系:改善治疗联盟的干预措施的系统评价。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Feb;102:103490. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103490. Epub 2019 Nov 23.