Methods used to develop quality of care standards and indicators for mental health across the WHO European region: a rapid systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This rapid review aims to understand whether a standardised approach to developing quality standards and indicators for mental health has been used across the WHO European Region and beyond to inform methods to develop quality standards for child and adolescent mental health services. INTRODUCTION: Improving the quality of child and adolescent mental healthcare across the WHO European Region is a priority. Despite advances in quality of care for mental health, many challenges remain, including the lack of a standardised approach to quality improvement. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Papers that outline methods used to develop quality standards or indicators for mental healthcare, published since the year 2000 in English and for use in the WHO European Region, Australia, Canada or the USA, were included. METHODS: Methods were based on guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and WHO. Searches were conducted across PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar from 16 January to 30 January 2024. The titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened by two reviewers independently, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. A template based on five steps proposed to develop health indicators was used to extract relevant data by one reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: 21 studies were included in the review. All papers originated from high-income countries, with dominance from the USA, Canada and the UK. Most papers described four or five of the five proposed steps; however, there was variation in the extent to which these steps were described and how they were implemented. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that no consistent approach has been used to develop quality standards/indicators for mental healthcare. There is a need for more participation from people with lived experience and for more research across a wider geographic area. PRSOPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024496509.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".