Assessing mental health service user and carer involvement in physical health care planning: The development and validation of a new patient-reported experience measure

Chris J Sidey-Gibbons, Helen Brooks, Judith Gellatly, Nicola Small, Karina Lovell and Penny Bee

PLOS ONE, 2019, vol. 14, issue 2, 1-15

Abstract: Background: People living with serious mental health conditions experience increased morbidity due to physical health issues driven by medication side-effects and lifestyle factors. Coordinated mental and physical healthcare delivered in accordance with a care plan could help to reduce morbidity and mortality in this population. Efforts to develop new models of care are hampered by a lack of validated instruments to accurately assess the extent to which mental health services users and carers are involved in care planning for physical health. Objective: To develop a brief and accurate patient-reported experience measure (PREM) capable of assessing involvement in physical health care planning for mental health service users and their carers. Methods: We employed psychometric and statistical techniques to refine a bank of candidate questionnaire items, derived from qualitative interviews, into a valid and reliable measure involvement in physical health care planning. We assessed the psychometric performance of the item bank using modern psychometric analyses. We assessed unidimensionality, scalability, fit to the partial credit Rasch model, category threshold ordering, local dependency, differential item functioning, and test-retest reliability. Once purified of poorly performing and erroneous items, we simulated computerized adaptive testing (CAT) with 15, 10 and 5 items using the calibrated item bank. Results: Issues with category threshold ordering, local dependency and differential item functioning were evident for a number of items in the nascent item bank and were resolved by removing problematic items. The final 19 item PREM had excellent fit to the Rasch model fit (x2 = 192.94, df = 1515, P = .02, RMSEA = .03 (95% CI = .01-.04). The 19-item bank had excellent reliability (marginal r = 0.87). The correlation between questionnaire scores at baseline and 2-week follow-up was high (r = .70, P

Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206507 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 06507&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0206507

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206507

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().