Search

The present study aims to identify the most productive countries, journals, authors, institutions and the most used keywords in the field of special education during 2011-2020, based on the WoS database. The widespread effects of the papers and how they are related were analyzed with the bibliometric analysis method. The findings of the study showed that the USA is inarguably the most productive country, followed by England and Australia. On the other hand, there was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.929) between the number of papers published by countries and their h-index, a similar finding was also found to be present between the countries' h-index and GDP per capita (r = 0.790). Moreover, it was found that the journals with the highest quartile (Q1 and Q2) in the field of special education published significantly more papers than the journals with the lowest quartile (Q3 and Q4). Matson, JL (USA), Sigafoos, J (New Zealand) and Lancioni, GE (Italy) were determined as the most prolific authors, respectively. Autism, intellectual disability, and Down syndrome were the phrases most frequently used as keywords. Our findings provide key information regarding the developments that the research direction of special education field has recently taken. This study also serves a potential roadmap for future studies.

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to identify the most prolific countries in the field of special education and to discuss the widespread impact of their papers by taking into account the country's h-index. Through a bibliometric analysis, the data were collected in the Web of Science Core Collection category "Education, Special" in the Social Science Citation Index during 2011-2020. The 25 most prolific countries in the field of special education were determined in terms of paper productivity, and it was seen that the leading country was undisputedly the USA (54.42%). Meanwhile, a strong positive correlation was found between the h-index and the number of papers published by the countries (r=0.864). On the other hand, when the ranking in terms of the number of papers was reconfigured by the h-index, it was relatively changed. The possible reasons for this change for the countries with the most changing rankings were discussed by considering some definitive criteria such as the journal quartiles, the percentage of international and domestic, and the percentage of open access papers. This study reports a positive correlation between the quality and quantity in the field of special education for the publications of countries. It has been shown that where the positive correlation deviates, then especially, the journal quartiles, the percentage of international collaboration and the percentage of open access papers have a significant effect. The bibliometric findings may be useful to enrich the discussion about the widespread impact of papers and debate whether the use of h-index is acceptable for cross-national comparisons.

In this study, the variables having impact on the student motivation have been analyzed based on the articles, conference papers, master's theses and doctoral dissertations published in the years 2000-2017. A total of 165 research papers were selected for the research material and the data were collected through qualitative research techniques through document review and content analysis. According to the research results, the most important factors affecting student motivation are the fields of teacher, teachers' classroom management skills and their teaching methods. In this research, factors having less influence on the student motivation are parental communication, student characteristics and study fields. In addition, relational search type was used more than others, mostly students were selected as the study group and most researches were conducted in USA and Turkey.

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking., Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care., Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services., Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking., Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care., Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services., Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)