心理健康研究中的优先级设置:参与方法的范围界定综述

E. Güell , C. Benito-Amat , J. Molas-Gallart
{"title":"心理健康研究中的优先级设置:参与方法的范围界定综述","authors":"E. Güell ,&nbsp;C. Benito-Amat ,&nbsp;J. Molas-Gallart","doi":"10.1016/j.mhp.2023.200279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Since mental disorders represent a significant burden of disease, prevention programs are critical. Participatory methods have the potential to improve the value of health research by increasing our understanding of user needs. We present a scoping review of participatory methods in mental health research priority setting for the period 2010-2020. The objective is to analyse participatory methods spread and characteristics and its use for mental disorders prevention.</p></div><div><h3>Material and method</h3><p>After applying controlled terms of search, we selected peer-reviewed documents using MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, the Core Collection of the Web of Science and Scopus. We initially identified 330 documents from which we selected 74 articles. We noted and classified the stakeholder groups, the participatory methods applied and the mental health research priorities.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identify regional differences in applying participatory methods in mental health research prioritisation; the majority of studies are led by the UK, USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We identified differences among stakeholder groups priorities: when research beneficiaries participate in priority setting, research focuses on therapy, standards, education and psychology of mental disorders; on the other hand, when participation is limited to scientists, therapy, diagnosis, methods and standards receive more attention.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusions</h3><p>We categorised ten participatory methods, twenty-three mental health research priorities and five stakeholder groups. We conclude there is a change in the prioritisation of mental disorders research that opens the way to participatory methods combining a participatory strategy with other sources. Interventions focused on mental disorders prevention could benefit from a participatory mixed approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55864,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health and Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Priority setting in mental health research: a scoping review of participatory methods\",\"authors\":\"E. Güell ,&nbsp;C. Benito-Amat ,&nbsp;J. Molas-Gallart\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mhp.2023.200279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Since mental disorders represent a significant burden of disease, prevention programs are critical. Participatory methods have the potential to improve the value of health research by increasing our understanding of user needs. We present a scoping review of participatory methods in mental health research priority setting for the period 2010-2020. The objective is to analyse participatory methods spread and characteristics and its use for mental disorders prevention.</p></div><div><h3>Material and method</h3><p>After applying controlled terms of search, we selected peer-reviewed documents using MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, the Core Collection of the Web of Science and Scopus. We initially identified 330 documents from which we selected 74 articles. We noted and classified the stakeholder groups, the participatory methods applied and the mental health research priorities.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identify regional differences in applying participatory methods in mental health research prioritisation; the majority of studies are led by the UK, USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We identified differences among stakeholder groups priorities: when research beneficiaries participate in priority setting, research focuses on therapy, standards, education and psychology of mental disorders; on the other hand, when participation is limited to scientists, therapy, diagnosis, methods and standards receive more attention.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusions</h3><p>We categorised ten participatory methods, twenty-three mental health research priorities and five stakeholder groups. We conclude there is a change in the prioritisation of mental disorders research that opens the way to participatory methods combining a participatory strategy with other sources. Interventions focused on mental disorders prevention could benefit from a participatory mixed approach.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health and Prevention\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health and Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212657023000211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212657023000211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景由于精神障碍是疾病的重要负担,因此预防计划至关重要。参与式方法有可能通过增加我们对用户需求的理解来提高健康研究的价值。我们对2010-2020年期间心理健康研究优先事项的参与方法进行了范围审查。目的是分析参与式方法的传播、特点及其在精神障碍预防中的应用。材料和方法在应用受控搜索条件后,我们使用MEDLINE/PubMed、PsycINFO、科学网核心收藏和Scopus选择了同行评审的文件。我们最初确定了330份文件,从中选择了74篇文章。我们注意到并分类了利益相关者群体、应用的参与方法和心理健康研究的优先事项。结果我们确定了参与式方法在心理健康研究优先次序中的区域差异;大多数研究由英国、美国、澳大利亚和荷兰牵头。我们确定了利益相关者群体优先级之间的差异:当研究受益人参与优先级设置时,研究重点是精神障碍的治疗、标准、教育和心理学;另一方面,当参与仅限于科学家时,治疗、诊断、方法和标准受到更多关注。讨论和结论我们对十种参与方法、二十三个心理健康研究重点和五个利益相关者群体进行了分类。我们得出的结论是,精神障碍研究的优先顺序发生了变化,这为将参与策略与其他来源相结合的参与方法开辟了道路。以预防精神障碍为重点的干预措施可以受益于参与式混合方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Priority setting in mental health research: a scoping review of participatory methods

Background

Since mental disorders represent a significant burden of disease, prevention programs are critical. Participatory methods have the potential to improve the value of health research by increasing our understanding of user needs. We present a scoping review of participatory methods in mental health research priority setting for the period 2010-2020. The objective is to analyse participatory methods spread and characteristics and its use for mental disorders prevention.

Material and method

After applying controlled terms of search, we selected peer-reviewed documents using MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, the Core Collection of the Web of Science and Scopus. We initially identified 330 documents from which we selected 74 articles. We noted and classified the stakeholder groups, the participatory methods applied and the mental health research priorities.

Results

We identify regional differences in applying participatory methods in mental health research prioritisation; the majority of studies are led by the UK, USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We identified differences among stakeholder groups priorities: when research beneficiaries participate in priority setting, research focuses on therapy, standards, education and psychology of mental disorders; on the other hand, when participation is limited to scientists, therapy, diagnosis, methods and standards receive more attention.

Discussion and conclusions

We categorised ten participatory methods, twenty-three mental health research priorities and five stakeholder groups. We conclude there is a change in the prioritisation of mental disorders research that opens the way to participatory methods combining a participatory strategy with other sources. Interventions focused on mental disorders prevention could benefit from a participatory mixed approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mental Health and Prevention
Mental Health and Prevention Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
24 days
期刊最新文献
Improving resilience and mental well-being among refugees residing at asylum centers in the Netherlands: A pre-post feasibility study “It's the people that make the difference”: Understanding the significance of psychosocial support for professional athletes Parenting strategies to support adolescent mental health during a pandemic: A Delphi consensus study Whāia te iti kahurangi: Seeking perinatal mental health equity. Māori offer solutions for the health system Are younger people more accurate at identifying mental health disorders, recommending help appropriately, and do they show lower mental health stigma than older people?
×
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