Patient experience measurement in mental health and substance dependence inpatient care: development of short versions of validated questionnaires through importance ranking and psychometric testing

Background High-quality, patient-centred mental health and substance dependence care relies on robust Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs). Long questionnaires may burden patients and reduce response rates, particularly in vulnerable populations. In Norway, the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire (PIPEQ-CEM) and the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Interdisciplinary Treatment for Substance Dependence (PEQ-ITSD–CEM) are used to assess inpatient experiences. With the transition to continuous electronic data collection, there is an increasing need for shorter, psychometrically robust, and stakeholderMethods-informed versions of these questionnaires to improve feasibility and sustainability. Methods A three-phase mixed-methods approach was employed to develop short versions: (1) cognitive interviews with patients and health care workers to test ranking and rating exercises, (2) a main survey using ranking method to assess item importance across domains, and (3) an expert-panel consensus meeting to finalize item selection, balancing statistical robustness, patient-centred relevance, and content coverage. Results Ranking was cognitively more demanding, but more efficient for identifying priority items. In the main survey, eighty-eight patients and 104 health care workers participated, and consistency in prioritized items was found across groups. Short versions of PIPEQ-CEM and PEQ-ITSD–CEM each included seven items, representing key dimensions of care. The expert-panel-based selection of final items was informed by psychometric evaluation, stakeholder input, and findings from previous national surveys. Conclusion The shortened versions of PIPEQ-CEM and PEQ-ITSD–CEM are concise, psychometrically robust, and capture key aspects of patient experience prioritized by both patients and health care workers. They offer a practical tool for monitoring and improving service quality, though further validation in diverse clinical and cultural contexts is recommended.