The questions we ask – differences between the peer and allied health workforces

IF 1.4 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Advances in Mental Health Pub Date : 2020-02-06 DOI:10.1080/18387357.2020.1717360
M. Wyder, Helena Roennfeldt, S. Kisely, C. Ehrlich, Geoffrey Lau, G. Vilic, D. Crompton, F. Dark
{"title":"The questions we ask – differences between the peer and allied health workforces","authors":"M. Wyder, Helena Roennfeldt, S. Kisely, C. Ehrlich, Geoffrey Lau, G. Vilic, D. Crompton, F. Dark","doi":"10.1080/18387357.2020.1717360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: While there have been increased calls for mental health consumers to be involved in mental health services research, there is limited research exploring the research interests of this group. Aims: To compare the interests in different research topics of a peer workforce (people who are employed to use their lived experience of mental illness and recovery to support others) with those of Allied Health Professionals in a Hospital and Health Service. Method: A survey asking participants to rate their interest in researching various topics was distributed to the peer and allied health workforce. Differences between the two groups were tested with the Kruskal–Wallis test for independent samples. Results: The peer workforce consistently rated their interest in all questions as greater than the Allied Health Workforce with five of the seven questions showing statistically significant differences. The median ratings of interest for four of the seven topics were high for both the peer and allied health. These were primarily items on how to help. The peer workforce also expressed a greater interest in being involved in the research. Conclusions: Our study emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for including the peer workforce in all aspects of the research process.","PeriodicalId":51720,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health","volume":"60 1","pages":"176 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2020.1717360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: While there have been increased calls for mental health consumers to be involved in mental health services research, there is limited research exploring the research interests of this group. Aims: To compare the interests in different research topics of a peer workforce (people who are employed to use their lived experience of mental illness and recovery to support others) with those of Allied Health Professionals in a Hospital and Health Service. Method: A survey asking participants to rate their interest in researching various topics was distributed to the peer and allied health workforce. Differences between the two groups were tested with the Kruskal–Wallis test for independent samples. Results: The peer workforce consistently rated their interest in all questions as greater than the Allied Health Workforce with five of the seven questions showing statistically significant differences. The median ratings of interest for four of the seven topics were high for both the peer and allied health. These were primarily items on how to help. The peer workforce also expressed a greater interest in being involved in the research. Conclusions: Our study emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for including the peer workforce in all aspects of the research process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们提出的问题——同行和联合卫生工作人员之间的差异
背景:虽然越来越多的人呼吁心理健康消费者参与心理健康服务研究,但探索这一群体的研究兴趣的研究有限。目的:比较医院和卫生服务机构的同侪工作人员(受雇利用其精神疾病和康复的生活经验来支持他人的人)与专职卫生专业人员在不同研究课题上的兴趣。方法:一项调查要求参与者评估他们对研究各种主题的兴趣,并将其分发给同行和联合卫生工作人员。用独立样本的Kruskal-Wallis检验来检验两组之间的差异。结果:同行员工一致认为他们对所有问题的兴趣都大于联合健康员工,七个问题中的五个显示出统计学上的显著差异。对于同伴和联合健康来说,七个主题中有四个的兴趣评级中位数都很高。这些主要是关于如何提供帮助的项目。同事们也对参与这项研究表现出了更大的兴趣。结论:我们的研究强调了在研究过程的各个方面创造机会包括同行劳动力的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Patients’ and staff’s experiences of Well-Track physical activity and sleep quality intervention in an Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service Assessment of the implementation of psychological first aid training: adaptation and validation of determinants of the implementation behavior questionnaire Investigating factors that impact on the uptake of Mental Health First Aid Australia’s Conversations About Gambling course: a qualitative study engaging stakeholder perspectives The relationship between mental health and stress: the moderating role of satisfaction with friendships Mental Health First Aid training for China: protocol for a randomised controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1