The WHO QualityRights Initiative and its use worldwide

A literature review

Bibliographic Data

ID19273630
AuthorsAna Beatriz Zanardo Mion (0000-0002-6944-3905, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Center for Nursing Research Development, Department of Psychiatric Nursing and Human Sciences at the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto College of Nursing, Brazil), Carla A Arena Ventura (0000-0003-0379-913X, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Center for Nursing Research Development, Department of Psychiatric Nursing and Human Sciences at the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto College of Nursing, Brazil, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume70
Issue3
Pages424-436
Publication date2024-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-7640 • E-ISSN: 1741-2854
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/00207640231207580
PMID38149349
OpenAlexW4390268969
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited32

BACKGROUND: To subsidize and win the fight against the violation of the human rights of people with mental disorders, an international working group has built a toolkit of quality assurance services and the exercise of human rights by users, both in low-, middle, and high-income countries. The World Health Organization's (WHO) QualityRights Initiative has been discussed and agreed upon by government entities in many countries in its use and implementation. The program includes a service assessment kit and training modules. AIMS: In this context, this article aims to synthesize, from database searches, how the QualityRights Initiative is being used worldwide. METHOD: This is an integrative literature review, in which 354 articles were initially obtained. After analysis, 25 articles were included in this study. RESULTS: The results show different ways of using the initiative: service evaluation; QualityRights Initiative service evaluation and training provision; innovations on how to use the QualityRights Initiative; and QualityRights Initiative trainings. CONCLUSIONS: As the first part of the initiative, the service assessment part, was launched before the training materials, most of the articles found (17) were using it. Despite the recent launch of the training part of the initiative, five articles were found to have already conducted the training. In addition, three articles reported on the use of the initiative in other ways, such as translation and cultural adaptation of the modules; updating the document in light of the QualityRights project; and assessing whether its implementation would be effective in reducing coercive practices

Business · Context (archaeology) · Government (linguistics) · Human rights · Medical education · Political science · Program evaluation · Public relations · Service (business) · Subsidy · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Marketing · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOI