MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191960913 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.719994

An International Pilot Study of Self-Reported Quality of Life in Outpatient and Inpatient Mental Health Settings

2021· article· en· W3191960913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Johanna De Almeida Mello, Hao Luo, Alice Hirdes, Jyrki Heikkilä, Benoite Umubyeyi, Darius Gishoma, Margaret Saari, John P. Hirdes, Chantal Van Audenhove

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersKU LeuvenUniversity of Rwanda
KeywordsMental healthMedicineOddsQuality of life (healthcare)Scale (ratio)PsychologyFamily medicineClinical psychologyGerontologyLogistic regressionPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Measuring quality of life (QoL) is essential to understand how clients perceive their care. In practice, many instruments are in place to identify mental health diagnoses and measure treatment outcomes, but there are fewer standardized instruments to routinely collect information about self-reported QoL, especially across different mental health settings. Moreover, existing tools have been criticized for being built from the perspective of care professionals rather than the users' perspective. The 23-item Self-Reported interRAI-QoL Survey for Mental Health and Addictions (interRAI SQoL-MHA) tackles these issues, as it is based on self-reported measures and has proven validity across settings and countries. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess and compare QoL across settings and explore associations between dimensions of self-reported QoL and some items from the interRAI SQoL-MHA in a multinational sample. Settings: Inpatient and community mental health services. Methods: Data were collected from organizations in Belgium, Finland, Russia, Brazil, Rwanda, Canada and Hong Kong. Logistic regression models were constructed using each domain scale of the interRAI SQoL-MHA (relationship, support, hope, activities and relationship with staff) as dependent variables. Results: A total of 2,474 people (51.2% female, 56.7% of age 45 or older) were included in the study. A benchmark analysis showed the samples that performed above the benchmark line or below. The models yielded significant odds ratios among the domain scales, as well as for the items of the interRAI SQoL-MHA, with positive associations for the items “work and education opportunities” and “satisfied with services”, and inverse associations for the items “financial difficulties” and for the inpatient setting. Conclusion: The analysis of associations between the determinants offers relevant information to improve mental health care and clients' perceived quality of life. Information about the determinants can help policymakers to design interventions to improve care outcomes, as well as provide more possibilities for integration into the community. The interRAI SQoL-MHA is innovative, as it can be linked to the third generation interRAI MH and Community MH-instruments, to be used in different mental health care settings, combining the objective and subjective QoL domains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207