OBJECTIVES: To validate a brief self-completed questionnaire for routinely assessing patients' opinions on the quality of care in inpatient psychiatric wards (Rome Opinion Questionnaire for Psychiatric Wards). DESIGN: A preliminary version was assessed for face and content validity by eight psychiatrists and two patient focus groups. The final version was evaluated for acceptability, factor structure, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. SETTING: An inpatient psychiatric ward in a general hospital in Rome. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was administered to all consecutive inpatients admitted over a 6-month period (n = 169). Test-retest reliability was evaluated by administering the questionnaire for a second time to 27 inpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Face and content validity: psychiatrists and focus groups' opinions on relevance, importance, and clarity, acceptability: inpatients' opinions on user-friendliness; factor analysis: principal component analysis; internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha; test-retest reliability: Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient RESULTS: After evaluating face and content validity, the questionnaire was reduced to 10 items. Inpatients found the questionnaire to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed that three factors-professional qualities of staff, information received, and physical environment-explained 67.2% of total variance. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 for the questionnaire and 0.61, 0.71, and 0.35 for the three factors, respectively. Test-retest reliability was good; weighted kappa higher than 0.9 for three items and 0.6-0.9 for seven items. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire seems to be adequate for evaluating patients' opinions on care in inpatient psychiatric wards. Because of its user-friendliness, it may be particularly suitable for routine use.
OBJECTIVES: To validate a brief self-completed questionnaire for routinely assessing patients' opinions on the quality of care in inpatient psychiatric wards (Rome Opinion Questionnaire for Psychiatric Wards). DESIGN: A preliminary version was assessed for face and content validity by eight psychiatrists and two patient focus groups. The final version was evaluated for acceptability, factor structure, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. SETTING: An inpatient psychiatric ward in a general hospital in Rome. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was administered to all consecutive inpatients admitted over a 6-month period (n = 169). Test-retest reliability was evaluated by administering the questionnaire for a second time to 27 inpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Face and content validity: psychiatrists and focus groups' opinions on relevance, importance, and clarity, acceptability: inpatients' opinions on user-friendliness; factor analysis: principal component analysis; internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha; test-retest reliability: Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient RESULTS: After evaluating face and content validity, the questionnaire was reduced to 10 items. Inpatients found the questionnaire to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed that three factors-professional qualities of staff, information received, and physical environment-explained 67.2% of total variance. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 for the questionnaire and 0.61, 0.71, and 0.35 for the three factors, respectively. Test-retest reliability was good; weighted kappa higher than 0.9 for three items and 0.6-0.9 for seven items. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire seems to be adequate for evaluating patients' opinions on care in inpatient psychiatric wards. Because of its user-friendliness, it may be particularly suitable for routine use.
Authors: Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux; Frédy Scherer; Laurence Peer; Federico Cathieni; Charles Bonsack; Agatta Cléopas; Véronique Kolly; Thomas V Perneger; Bernard Burnand Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-08-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: B W M Siu; M M Y Tsang; V C K Lee; A C Y Liu; S Tse; H S M Luk; N K Y Lo; P H Lo; Y L Leung Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.630