Determining mental health research priorities in a Queensland region: An inclusive and iterative approach with mental health service clinicians, consumers and carers
Determining mental health research priorities in a Queensland region: An inclusive and iterative approach with mental health service clinicians, consumers and carers
复制标题
确定昆士兰地区的心理健康研究重点：与心理健康服务临床医生、消费者和护理人员一起采用包容性和迭代的方法
DOI：
10.5172/jamh.2012.10.3.268
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Dunn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Mcallister;J. Munday;M. Taikato;Bernie Waterhouse;P. Dunn
摘要澳大利亚有国家和州的精神卫生计划，指导服务的发展，并提高其公共精神卫生系统的质量。有趣的是，澳大利亚在心理健康领域仍然缺乏一个管理良好、优先驱动的研究项目。这种缺乏可能表明，与其他健康领域相比，在国家一级，精神卫生研究的资金历来相对缺乏。因此，研究方法往往是临时性的，对紧急问题作出反应。2009-2010年，在昆士兰州的一个区域公共精神卫生服务机构开展了一项参与性行动研究，采用了以共识为导向的德尔菲方法。这项研究的目的是确定和优先考虑的研究问题的重要性，以当地的公共精神卫生服务及其成员，比较当地的优先事项与国家和国家的研究议程，并确定相关的研究能力的需求。数据收集使用修改后的德尔菲技术，三轮调查，现场笔记和研究小组的反思。该研究达成了共识，所有三组参与者都认为情绪健康是最重要的研究领域。第二个最重要的研究领域是服务质量和问责制。第三个最重要的研究领域是家庭参与照顾他们的亲属和个人（即消费者）参与自己的照顾。
Abstract Australia has national and state mental health plans that guide service development and promote quality in its public mental health system. Interestingly though, Australia still lacks a well-managed, priority-driven program of research in the mental health sector. This lack is perhaps indicative of the historical relative lack of funding for mental health research compared with other areas of health, at a national level. As a result, approaches to research tend to be ad hoc and reactive to emergent problems. In 2009–2010, a participatory action research study using elements of the consensus oriented Delphi method was implemented in a Queensland regional public mental health service. The aims of the study were to identify and prioritise research questions of importance to the local public mental health service and its members, to compare local priorities with national and state research agendas, and to identify needs relating to research capacity. Data were collected using a modified Delphi technique, three rounds of surveys, field notes and research team reflection. The study reached consensus, with all three cohorts of participants agreed that emotional well-being was the most important research area. The second most important research area was service quality and accountability. The equal third most important research areas were family involvement in the care of their relative and personal (that is, consumer) involvement in their own care.
影响因子：
8.2
作者：
Fredrickson, BL;Joiner, T
通讯作者：
Joiner, T