Correction: Mediation and moderation effects of health system structure and process on the quality of mental health services in Ghana–structural equation modelling

There are errors in Fig 1 and Fig 2 regarding the covary between observed variable “G” (under latent variable Structure) and observed variable “M” (under latent variable Process). In Fig 2, the covary for the modification of the model is performed between observed variables under the same latent variable. Goodness of Fit: RMSEA = 0.05; 90% CI, lower bound = 0.050; upper bound = 0.063; pclose = 0.062 Probability RMSEA < = 0.05; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.940; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.917; Coefficient of determination = 0.88. Please see the correct Fig 1 and Fig 2 here.

Fig 1. Hypothesised structural equation model.

Fig 2. Standardized coefficient estimates of hypothesized SEM.

These errors also occur in the Confirmatory factor analysis results subsection of the Results and in Table 4. The correct paragraph is:

Table 4. Standardized coefficient estimates for CFA.

Variables	Latent constructs	β	SE	95% CI
Structural
Process	Outcome	0.47**	0.13	0.21–0.73
Structure	Outcome	0.60**	0.17	0.27–96
Structure	Process	1.01**	0.16	0.69–1.32
Measurement
Accessibility	Structure	1.00
Affordability	Structure	0.96**	0.19	0.58–1.34
Managing Side effects	Structure	1.38**	0.22	95–1.81
Response of Service to Crises	Structure	1.19**	0.19	0.80–1.57
Listen to the worries of Relatives	Structure	1.89**	0.27	1.36–2.42
Recommendation to relatives	Structure	1.73**	0.25	1.22–2.21
Information to Relatives	Structure	1.89**	0.27	1.32–2.41
Competency of psychiatrist	Process	1.00
Psychiatrist listen & understand illness	Process	1.15**	0.11	93–1.37
Instructions about appointment	Process	1.07**	0.11	0.85–1.30
Cooperation between service providers	Process	.96**	0.11	0.73–1.19
Confidentiality and respect for your right	Process	1.16**	0.11	0.93–1.38
Information about diagnosis and prognosis	Process	1.52**	0.17	1.18–1.85
Explanation of procedures and approaches	Process	1.14**	0.13	0.97–1.50
Attaining wellbeing	Outcome	1.00
Knowledge & understanding	Outcome	0.01**	0.07	0.85–1.16
Symptoms	Outcome	1.08**	0.08	0.92–1.16
Self-care	Outcome	1.25**	0.10	1.05–1.46
Relationship	Outcome	1.31**	0.10	1.10–1.52
Work/vocational skills	Outcome	1.31**	0.10	1.10–1.52
Satisfaction	Outcome	0.79**	0.07	0.65–0.93

**Significance p<0.01; Goodness of Fit: RMSEA = 0.05; 90% CI, lower bound = 0.050; upper bound = 0.063; pclose = 0.062 Probability RMSEA < = 0.05; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.940; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.917; Coefficient of determination = 0.88

As shown in Table 3, the correlation matrix demonstrates sufficient convergent and discriminant correlation between the VSS-54 construct and WHODAS construct. Fig 1, graphically describes the hypothesized SEM. Results from the CFA showed that the hypothesized model had a good fit with the Residual Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; 90% CI, lower bound = 0.050; upper bound = 0.063; pclose = 0.062; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.940; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.917; Coefficient of determination = 0.88. Details of the standardized coefficient estimates for CFA is represented in Fig 2 and Table 4. The path model result shows that the health system structure was significantly related to the process and outcome (β = 0.47; p<0.001). Similarly, the health systems structure construct was mediated by the process construct in its relationship with the outcome (β = 0.346; p<0.001).

Please see the correct Table 4 here.