The Relatives Experience Questionnaire for Acute Inpatient Child and Adolescence Mental Health Services (REQ-AICAMHS): reliability and validity following a Norwegian survey
Haugum, M.; Hestad Iversen, H.; Arellano Lorenzen, K. E.; Siqveland, J.; Bjertnaes, O.
Show abstract
IntroductionAdolescents with mental health disorders represent a vulnerable group with complex care needs, yet their and their relatives experiences in acute inpatient mental health services remain poorly understood. While patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are increasingly recognized as essential for improving healthcare quality, validated instruments for child and adolescent mental health inpatient settings are lacking--particularly from the perspective of relatives, who are often deeply involved in care. ObjectiveThis study aims to develop and psychometrically evaluate the Relatives Experience Questionnaire for Acute Inpatient Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (REQ-AICAMHS), the first instrument designed to capture relatives experiences in Norwegian acute inpatient mental health units for adolescents. MethodsThe REQ-AICAMHS will be developed using the Norwegian Institute of Public Healths (NIPH) standard methodology, including a literature review, expert consultation, qualitative interviews, and cognitive testing with relatives. Data will be collected digitally from relatives of all adolescents admitted to 17 acute inpatient child and adolescent mental health units across Norway. Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and Item Response Theory (IRT) using the Generalized Partial Credit Model (GPCM) will be applied to assess data quality, factor structure, construct validity, and internal consistency. Open-ended responses will be analysed using both qualitative and machine learning methods to identify key themes and subdomains of experience. ResultsPreliminary results will include descriptive statistics of respondents, item-level analysis (missing data, ceiling effects), factor loadings and reliability coefficients (Cronbachs alpha [≥]0.7), inter-item and scale correlations, construct validity testing, and IRT parameters (item discrimination and threshold estimates). Findings will inform the development of a shortened version of the questionnaire for broader implementation in quality improvement initiatives.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers 95%
- While they wait: A cross-sectional survey on wait times for mental health treatment for anxiety and depression for Australian adolescents 94%
- Psychosocial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic: Identification of most vulnerable populations 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Benefits and Harms of Open Notes in Mental Health: A Delphi Survey of International Experts 94%
- Mapping young people’s journeys through mental health services: a prospective longitudinal qualitative study protocol 94%
- Unlocking the mentally ill in Indonesia: An empirical study of the effectiveness of a “Bebas Pasung” program in Central Java 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Mental health problems in the general population during and after the first lockdown phase due to the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic: Rapid review of multi-wave studies 92%
- The treatment gap for mental disorders in adults enrolled in HIV treatment programs in South Africa: A cohort study using linked electronic health records 92%
- Improving outcomes for people who are homeless and have severe mental illness in Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya: overview of the HOPE programme 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-wave cohort study 93%
- Effectiveness, acceptability and potential harms of peer support for self-harm in non-clinical settings: A systematic review 93%
- One year later: Tracking the continued growth of mental illness stigma in England 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.