Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37608557›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

How to make mental health services more youth-friendly? A Delphi study involving young adults, parents and professionals.

Eline Wittevrongel, Ruud van Winkel, Maarten Jackers, Laura Colman, Melina Versyck, Eline Camp, Geert Everaert, May Vrijens, Dieter Baeyens, Marina Danckaerts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How to make mental health services more youth-friendly? A Delphi study involving young adults, parents and professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eline WittevrongelDepartment of Neurosciences, Research Group Psychiatry, Center for Clinical Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9037-6284
Ruud van WinkelDepartment of Neurosciences, Research Group Psychiatry, Center for Clinical Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6262-1935
Maarten JackersDepartment of Neurosciences, Research Group Psychiatry, Center for Clinical Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Laura ColmanFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0006-6749-8810
Melina VersyckFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Eline CampFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Geert EveraertNeuro-Psychiatric Clinic Saint Joseph V.Z.W., Pittem, Belgium.
May VrijensAsster Psychiatric Hospital, Sint-Truiden, Belgium.
Dieter BaeyensFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Parenting and Special Education, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3875-687X
Marina DanckaertsUniversity Psychiatric Center (UPC) KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7168-963X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough youth-friendly service characteristics have been previously identified, consensus among a representative group of stakeholders about which of these characteristics are truly relevant to the youth-friendliness of services is currently lacking. In our study, young adults, parents and professionals were consulted on this topic to reveal existing (dis)agreement. In addition, (dis)agreement on feasibility for implementation in clinical practice was also assessed.

methodsA mixed-method Delphi approach was used with three online questionnaire rounds and a physical meeting. Young adults (18-26 years) and parents were part of a public panel and professionals were allocated to the professional panel. In the rounds, participants were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each item. Subsequently, the percentage agreement (% of participants giving a score of 7 or above on a 9-point Likert scale) within and across panels was calculated. Consensus was assumed to have been reached when at least 70% agreement was achieved. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data, obtained in the rounds and the physical meeting, was performed to identify overarching themes and characteristics of relevance to the youth-friendliness of services.

resultsFor 65% of the items included in the Delphi questionnaire, consensus on importance was reached within both panels. Participants showed more insecurity about the feasibility of these items, however. Our thematic analysis revealed reasons for disagreement between and within the panels.

conclusionsOur study revealed substantial between- and within-panel agreement on youth-friendly service characteristics. We recommend that the items for which consensus was reached should be used as a checklist in terms of youth mental health service development, design and delivery. The characteristics for which there was disagreement between and within the panels should inspire an ongoing trialogue between young adults, parents and professionals both on the individual level and the service level. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In this study, (parents of) young adults with lived experience were included as experts, including one of the coauthors. This coauthor contributed to the manuscript by having a final say about the included quotes.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesAdolescentChecklistDelphi TechniqueHumansParentsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultDelphi studymental healthpatient-oriented researchservice designyouth

Identifiers

PMID37608557
PMCPMC10632649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.