HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, S M Articles by Gask, L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Campbell, S M Articles by Gask, L Topic Collections Relevant Article

How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr S Campbell
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; stephen.campbell{at}man.ac.uk Background: While mental health is a core part of primary care, there are few validated quality measures and little relevant internationally published research. Consensus panel methods are a useful means of developing quality measures where evidence is sparse and/or opinions are diverse. However, little is known about the dynamics of consensus techniques and the factors that influence the judgements and ratings of panels and individual panellists.

Objectives: (1) To describe differences in panel ratings on the quality of primary mental health care services by patient, carer, professional and managerial panels within a Delphi procedure; and (2) to explore why different panels and panellists rate quality indicators of primary mental health care differently.

Design: Two round postal Delphi technique and exploratory semi-structured interviews.

Participants: 115 panellists across 11 panels. Eleven panellists were subsequently interviewed.

Results: 87 of 334 indicators (26%) were rated face valid by all 11 panels. There was little disagreement within panel ratings but significant differences between panels. The GP panel rated the least number of indicators valid (n = 138, 41%) and carers the most (n = 304, 91%). The way in which panellists interpreted and conceptualised the indicators and their definition of quality of mental health care affected the way in which participants made their ratings.

Conclusions: Stakeholders in primary mental health care have diverse views of quality of care and these differences translate into how they rate quality indicators. Exploratory interviews suggest that ratings are influenced by past experience, expectations, definitions of quality of care, and perceived power relationships between stakeholders.

Keywords: quality indicators; consensus techniques; mental health; Delphi; primary care; qualitative

Relevant Article

Quality Lines
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 406a. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Aron and L. Pogach Quality indicators for diabetes mellitus in the ambulatory setting: using the Delphi method to inform performance measurement development Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2008; 17(5): 315 - 317. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.M. Mourad, R.P.M.G. Hermens, W.L.D.M. Nelen, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer Guideline-based development of quality indicators for subfertility care Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2007; 22(10): 2665 - 2672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sharan Primary Health Care Journal of Health Management, October 1, 2005; 7(2): 295 - 302. [PDF]