• Sara Sanchez-Balcells, Marta Callarisa Roca, Nathalia Rodriguez-Zunino, Montserrat Puig-Llobet, Maria-Teresa Lluch-Canut, and Juan F Roldan-Merino.
• Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Sant Boi del Llobregat, Spain.
• J Adv Nurs. 2018 Nov 1; 74 (11): 2497-2510.

AimTo identify the methodological quality of each study and analyse the psychometric properties of instruments measuring quality and satisfaction with care from the perspective of mental health patients and professionals.BackgroundIn recent years, interest in rigorously assessing quality of care in mental health and nursing has increased. Health professionals and researchers should select the most adequate instrument based on knowledge of its measurement properties.Review DesignA psychometric review was conducted of the instruments from the perspectives of both patients and professionals according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments panel (COSMIN).Data SourcesArticles published from January 2005 - September 2016 were identified in a search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. We included studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.Review MethodsInclusion criteria were applied to all articles validated and reviewed by a second independent reviewer. The analysis included the use of the COSMIN checklist and the Terwee quality criteria.ResultsIn the 34 studies selected, a total of 22 instruments which measure quality and satisfaction with care provided, according to patients and/or professionals, were identified. Most are instruments with sound, contemporary theoretical foundations. They vary to the extent to which they have been used in empirical studies and with respect to evaluation of their validity and reliability, although five instruments stand out as yielding good-excellent values in quality criteria.ConclusionThe present psychometric review found that five of the instruments met valid psychometric criteria. In light of the current economic situation, future reviews should include analysis of the usefulness of instruments based on cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and educational impact.© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

32 keywords...

hide…