Cited by 1,203Psychiatric care and mental health servicesSchizophrenia research and treatmentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): Research and development

Wing, J. K., Beevor, A. S., Curtis, R. H., Park, S. G. B., Hadden, J., Burns, A.·1998·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: An instrument was required to quantify and thus potentially measure progress towards a Health of the Nation target, set by the Department of Health, “to improve significantly the health and social functioning of mentally ill people” Method: A first draft was created in consultation with experts and on the basis of literature review. This version was improved during four stages of testing: two preliminary stages, a large field trial involving 2706 patients (rated by 492 clinicians) and tests of the final Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), which included an independent study (n=197) of reliability and relationship to other instruments. Results: The resulting 12-item instrument is simple to use, covers clinical problems and social functioning with reasonable adequacy, has been generally acceptable to clinicians who have used it, is sensitive to change or the lack of it, showed good reliability in independent trials and compared reasonably well with equivalent items in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales and Role Functioning Scales. Conclusions: The key test for HoNOS is that clinicians should want to use it for their own purposes. In general, it has passed that test. A further possibility, that HoNOS data collected routinely as part of a minimum data set, for example for the Care Programme Approach, could also be useful in anonymised and aggregated form for public health purposes, is therefore testable but has not yet been tested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.172.1.11

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wing, J. K., Beevor, A. S., Curtis, R. H., Park, S. G. B., Hadden, J., & Burns, A.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Wing, J. K.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1998-01
Volume
172
Issue
1
Pages
11-18
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W1983159214
Cited by
1,203
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 57
FWCI
33.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, mental illness, social functioning, outcome measurement, scale development, reliability statistics, sensitivity to change, Care Programme Approach, Minimum Data Set, public health monitoring, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Health Policy, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Sensitivity and Specificity, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review