ABSTRACT Aims and Objectives Patients' perspectives on quality of care are vital, and cross‐country comparisons of inpatient settings can provide valuable insights. This study aims to describe and compare Norwegian and Swedish patients' perceptions of the quality of their inpatient mental healthcare. It also explores how admission status (voluntary vs. involuntary), demographics and clinical characteristics are associated with these perceptions. Ethical Issues and Approval The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Regional Ethical Committees in both countries. Research Methods A cross‐sectional, descriptive‐comparative design was applied. Adult inpatients meeting inclusion criteria were recruited from 21 mental health hospital wards in Norway and Sweden using convenience sampling. Data were collected using the validated Quality in Psychiatric Care–Inpatient (QPC‐IP) instrument. Of 354 returned questionnaires, 40 were excluded due to missing data, leaving 155 Norwegian and 159 Swedish for analysis. Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses were conducted to examine differences ( p ≤ 0.05). Outcome Measures Perceived quality of mental healthcare, measured with the QPC‐IP. Results Norwegian patients reported significantly higher perceived quality of care than Swedish patients across all QPC‐IP dimensions: Encounter, Participation, Discharge, Support, Secluded Environment and Secure Environment . Significant interactions between country and admission status were observed on the Support and Discharge dimensions, with involuntarily admitted Swedish patients reporting the lowest quality of care. Study Limitations Although the study included multiple hospitals in both countries, the sample size was relatively small. While not designed to yield generalisable results, the limited sample may still restrict transferability. Data was collected during different time periods, which may have introduced time‐related variation. Conclusions The findings reveal significant differences in perceived quality of mental healthcare between the two settings, underscoring the need to explore factors contributing to these disparities.
Fossum et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: