scholarly journals Co-development of a best practice checklist for mental health data science: A Delphi study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.J. Kirkham ◽  
C.J. Crompton ◽  
M.H. Iveson ◽  
I. Beange ◽  
A. McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Health Data ◽  
The Future ◽  
Three Phases

AbstractBackgroundMental health research is commonly affected by difficulties in recruiting and retaining participants, resulting in findings which are based on a sub-sample of those actually living with mental illness. Increasing the use of Big Data for mental health research, especially routinely-collected data, could improve this situation. However, steps to facilitate this must be enacted in collaboration with those who would provide the data - people with mental health conditions.MethodsWe used the Delphi method to create a best practice checklist for mental health data science. Twenty participants with both expertise in data science and personal experience of mental illness worked together over three phases. In the Phase 1, participants rated a list of 63 statements and added any statements or topics that were missing. Statements receiving a mean score of 5 or more (out of 7) were retained. These were then combined with the results of a rapid thematic analysis of participants’ comments to produce a 14-item draft checklist, with each item split into two components: best practice now and best practice in the future. In Phase 2, participants indicated whether or not each item should remain in the checklist, and items that scored more than 50% endorsement were retained. In Phase 3 participants rated their satisfaction with the final checklist.ResultsThe final checklist was made up of 14 “best practice” items, with each item covering best practice now and best practice in the future. At the end of the three phases, 85% of participants were (very) satisfied with the two best practice checklists, with no participants expressing dissatisfaction.ConclusionsIncreased stakeholder involvement is essential at every stage of mental health data science. The checklist produced through this work represents the views of people with experience of mental illness, and it is hoped that it will be used to facilitate trustworthy and innovative research which is inclusive of a wider range of individuals.

scholarly journals Co-development of a Best Practice Checklist for Mental Health Data Science: A Delphi Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Kirkham ◽  
Catherine J. Crompton ◽  
Matthew H. Iveson ◽  
Iona Beange ◽  
Andrew M. McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Health Data ◽  
The Future ◽  
Three Phases

Background: Mental health research is commonly affected by difficulties in recruiting and retaining participants, resulting in findings which are based on a sub-sample of those actually living with mental illness. Increasing the use of Big Data for mental health research, especially routinely-collected data, could improve this situation. However, steps to facilitate this must be enacted in collaboration with those who would provide the data - people with mental health conditions.Methods: We used the Delphi method to create a best practice checklist for mental health data science. Twenty participants with both expertise in data science and personal experience of mental illness worked together over three phases. In Phase 1, participants rated a list of 63 statements and added any statements or topics that were missing. Statements receiving a mean score of 5 or more (out of 7) were retained. These were then combined with the results of a rapid thematic analysis of participants' comments to produce a 14-item draft checklist, with each item split into two components: best practice now and best practice in the future. In Phase 2, participants indicated whether or not each item should remain in the checklist, and items that scored more than 50% endorsement were retained. In Phase 3 participants rated their satisfaction with the final checklist.Results: The final checklist was made up of 14 “best practice” items, with each item covering best practice now and best practice in the future. At the end of the three phases, 85% of participants were (very) satisfied with the two best practice checklists, with no participants expressing dissatisfaction.Conclusions: Increased stakeholder involvement is essential at every stage of mental health data science. The checklist produced through this work represents the views of people with experience of mental illness, and it is hoped that it will be used to facilitate trustworthy and innovative research which is inclusive of a wider range of individuals.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical industry, academia and people with experience of mental illness as partners in research: a need for ethical guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 196
Author(s):  
Sapfo Lignou ◽  
Ilina Singh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
Ethical Guidance

Background: Several social and policy developments have led to research partnerships in mental health research, which depart from traditional research models. One form of such partnerships is among Research institutions, Industry (pharmaceutical and biotech) and People with lived experience of mental illness (RIPs) in the NIHR services. There are several benefits but also challenges in such partnerships. An ethics-based approach to anticipating and addressing such problems is lacking. Given the expansion of RIPs in treatment development for mental health illness, guidance to support ethical and effective collaborations in NIHR-funded mental health research is essential. Methods: To develop a moral framework for evaluating the ethics of RIPs, we systematically searched PubMed for peer-reviewed literature discussing good practices in research partnerships. Searches were also conducted in websites of known organizations supporting patient engagement with industry in mental health research and in the references of short-listed articles. Following application of exclusion criteria, remaining articles were critically examined and summarised to synthesise principles for ethical RIPs and inform clear guidance and practices. Results: Critical analysis and synthesis of the short-listed articles highlighted the need for two sets of principles to guide ethical RIPs: principles for (a) RIPs as a trustworthy enterprise and (b) fair RIPs. We discuss the application of these principles in problem-solving strategies that can support best practice in establishing fair and effective research partnerships among research institutions, industry and people with lived experience of mental illness in the NIHR services. Conclusions: Ethical guidance is needed to prevent and address challenges in RIPs and to promote the scientific and social benefits of these new research partnership models in mental health research in the NIHR services. We show how the proposed moral framework can guide research partners in designing, sustaining and assessing ethical and effective mental health research collaborations.

Overcoming the deficiency of refugee mental health research

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Kalfic ◽  
Glenn Mitchell ◽  
Lezanne Ooi ◽  
Sibylle Schwab ◽  
Natalie Matosin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Risk And Resilience ◽  
Refugee Mental Health ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

The growing number of refugees and asylum seekers are one of the most significant global challenges of this generation. We are currently witnessing the highest level of displacement in history, with over 65 million displaced people in the world. Refugees and asylum seekers are at higher risk to develop mental illness due to their trauma and chronic stress exposures, and particularly post-migration stressors. Yet global and Australian psychiatric research in this area is greatly lacking, particularly with respect to our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of risk and resilience to mental illness in traumatised populations. In this Viewpoint, we explore the reasons behind the lack of refugee mental health research and use this context to propose new ways forward. We believe that scientific discovery performed with a multidisciplinary approach will provide the broad evidence-base required to improve refugee mental health. This will also allow us to work towards the removal of damaging policies that prolong and potentiate mental health deterioration among refugees and asylum seekers, which impacts not only on the individuals but also host countries’ social, economic and healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Identifying Ethical Issues in Mental Health Research with Minors Adolescents: Results of a Delphi Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeta Hiriscau ◽  
Nicola Stingelin-Giles ◽  
Danuta Wasserman ◽  
Stella Reiter-Theil
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Mental Health Research

scholarly journals A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Primer for Mental Health Researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C Conway ◽  
Miriam K. Forbes ◽  
Susan Carol South
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Psychological Disorders ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Paradigm ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Advance Research ◽  
Research Questions

Mental health research is at an important crossroads as the field seeks more reliable and valid phenotypes to study. Dimensional approaches to quantifying mental illness operate outside the confines of traditional categorical diagnoses, and they are gaining traction as a way to advance research on the causes and consequences of mental illness. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a leading dimensional research paradigm that synthesizes decades of investigation into evidence-based dimensions of psychological disorders. This article aims to make the application of dimensional approaches in mental health research more accessible through tutorials that demonstrate how to use the HiTOP model to formulate and test research questions. Data and annotated code (written for R and Mplus software programs) for each example are included (https://osf.io/8myzw). We outline how investigators can use these ideas and tools to generate new insights in their own substantive research programs.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical industry, academia and people with experience of mental illness as partners in research: a need for ethical guidance

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 196
Author(s):  
Sapfo Lignou ◽  
Ilina Singh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
Ethical Guidance

Background: Several social and policy developments have led to research partnerships in mental health research, which depart from traditional research models. One form of such partnerships is among research institutions, industry (pharmaceutical and biotech) and people with lived experience of mental illness (RIPs). There are several benefits but also ethical challenges in RIPs. An ethics-based approach to anticipating and addressing such ethical issues in mental health research is lacking. Given the expansion of RIPs in treatment development for mental health illness, guidance to support ethical and trustworthy collaborative mental health research projects is essential. Methods: To develop a moral framework for evaluating the ethics of RIPs, we systematically searched PubMed for peer-reviewed literature discussing good practices in research partnerships. Searches were also conducted in websites of known organizations supporting patient engagement with industry in mental health research and in the references of short-listed articles. Following application of exclusion criteria, remaining articles were critically examined and summarised to synthesise principles for ethically acceptable RIPs and inform clear guidance and practices. Results: Critical analysis and synthesis of the short-listed articles highlighted the need for two sets of principles to guide ethical RIPs: principles for (a) RIPs as a trustworthy enterprise (e.g. public accountability, transparency) and (b) fair RIPs (e.g. effective governance, respect). We discuss the application of these principles in problem-solving strategies that can support best practice in establishing fair and successful mental health research partnerships among research institutions, industry and people with lived experience of mental illness. Conclusions: Ethical guidance is needed to prevent and address challenges in RIPs and to promote the scientific and social benefits of these new research partnership models in mental health research. We show how the proposed moral framework can guide research partners in designing, sustaining and assessing ethical and trustworthy collaborative mental health research projects.

Correctional Mental Health Research and Program Evaluation

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Psychosocial Treatment ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Health Treatment ◽  
Correctional Mental Health

Research in mental health issues in prisoner populations essentially stopped in the mid 1970’s. It is now re-emerging as a critical component of improving mental health care and helping toward recovery for the incarcerated mentally ill. Mental illness, ranging from acute anxiety to schizophrenia, is endemic within prisons and jails. Unlike their free world counterparts, however, incarcerated people have a constitutional right to mental health treatment. Yet, despite the need for and right to mental health treatment, remarkably little reliable and valid evidence is available on the nature and level of mental illness among incarcerated people, the effects of incarceration on symptomatology, the availability and quality of medication, cognitive, and psychosocial treatment for disorders, and how context impacts the effectiveness of the treatment that is available. Evidence is absent because corrections-based research is constrained by regulation, financing, and inexperience. In this chapter, the history of prisoner research and the evolution of federal regulations to protect prisoners as human subjects will be reviewed and then discussed in terms of how regulation has impacted correctional mental health research, after first defining what is meant by research and why research is needed to inform policy and practice decisions. This will be followed by recommendations for building the correctional mental health research evidence base. The intent here is to help researchers, in collaboration with stakeholders, develop, design, and implement research studies, and disseminate evidence to advance science and the quality of care available to incarcerated people with mental illnesses within the current regulatory environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document