ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Initial Co-Design Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Patient Preferences in a Danish Mental Healthcare Setting.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Partnering with people with lived experience in eating disorder research: conceptual and practical considerations.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite decades of quality improvement efforts in mental healthcare, patient preferences remain insufficiently integrated into care planning and system design. Although person-centered care strives to align services with patients' most valued preferences, current tools for measuring those preferences often fall short. Embedding co-design approaches-where patients and other stakeholders collaborate as equal partners in tool development-is essential to ensure that measurement instruments are both relevant and resonant with lived experience. This study aimed to develop a questionnaire that captures patient preferences in mental healthcare through a co-design process that actively integrates lived experience, thereby enhancing face and content validity.
methodsThe development of the questionnaire followed four key phases: identification of domain, item generation, content validity, and pre-testing of questions. A co-design approach was integral to the entire process, with active collaboration with the co-researcher or co-designers at every phase.
resultsNine themes were identified in the literature, and two novel themes, "the person as a whole" and "meaningful community connections" emerged through co-design and extend beyond prior studies. From 242 preliminary items, workshops refined the questionnaire to 58, and content validation further reduced it to 54 items with recommendations for clarity, simplicity, and anonymous responses. Pre-testing of questions confirmed the questionnaire's usability and face validity.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates how traditional questionnaire development can be supported by co-design to effectively develop a patient preference questionnaire that is both valid and meaningful within the Danish mental healthcare context. While limitations exist, particularly regarding group dynamics and representation, the process sets a strong foundation for future work. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was co-designed in collaboration with individuals with lived experience of mental illness. A co-researcher with lived experience was involved throughout several stages of the research process, including the design and facilitation of workshops, recruitment of participants, and interpretation of findings. Additional 15 co-designers with lived experience were engaged in two workshops, contributing actively to the generation, refinement, and validation of questionnaire items. Their insights ensured that the tool reflects the values and preferences of those it aims to serve. Peer workers, clinicians, and researchers also supported the co-design process, helping facilitate workshops and integrate experiential and academic perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.