ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2010
Narrating uncertainties about treatment of mental health conditions.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Great expectations for participatory research: what have we achieved in the last ten years?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2014Article
- Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53 · 2014Review
- Association of treatment satisfaction and psychopathological sub-syndromes among involuntary patients with psychotic disorders.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2011Article
- Is the Internet replacing health professionals? A population survey on sources of medicines information among people with mental disorders.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegration of patient views in mental health service planning is in its infancy despite service provision being clearly dominated by narratives from professional consultations and medical records. We wished to clarify perceptions of uncertainty about mental health conditions from a range of provider and user perspectives (patients, carers, parents, mental health service providers) and understand the role of narratives in mental health research.
aims(1) To explore the utility of qualitative research methods, particularly narrative content analysis in mental health research, and (2) identify aspects of uncertainty in mental health service users and providers. MATERIAL: Four hundred and six free text responses were considered as one element of an existing questionnaire about uncertainties about mental health treatments, collected from mental healthcare users and providers through charities, the Mental Health Research Network in Wales, health professionals and websites. Free text responses were analysed using narrative content analysis, an elaborate and rigorous research technique that involves groups of analysts working independently and together over extended group sessions.
findingsThree main themes emerged across respondent groups: "medication and treatment options", "objectification and marginalisation of patient" and "integrity of service delivery". Within these, patients embraced the opportunity to write about their illness at length, whilst carers' and parents' main concerns were about how patients were dealing with their illnesses, the services they were getting and the side effects of treatments. Carers and patients' parents perceived themselves to be the 'go-between', carrying messages between patients and professionals, in order to enable services to function. Mental health service providers and professionals considered uncertainties surrounding medication and treatment from an 'evidence-base' perspective, concentrating on medication choices and the adoption of new approaches to care rather than patient need and expectation. Patients wanted to know what alternatives were available to the drug regimes they were on and felt their opinions were rarely listened to. As a consequence patients felt marginalised by the health systems there to support them and by society as a whole.
conclusionsNarrative content analysis can help distil large amounts of free text data and enable their successful interpretation. Listening to patients' voices should become an integral part of routine service evaluation and may help bring patient expectation more in line with service organisation and delivery towards an optimal delivery of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19466370What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.