ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify and describe common views of people with lived experience of mental health challenges - consumers and carers, families and supporters - of what they consider the most important measures to include in health economic evaluations which assess the incremental value of competing options in mental health care.
methodsParticipants (n = 111) were people living in the state of Victoria, Australia, who identified as consumers of mental healthcare (n = 38); carers, family members and/or supporters (n = 43); or both (n = 30). Factor analysis based on Q-Methodology was used to identify clusters of people who hold similar viewpoints. Common viewpoints were described in terms of the characteristics of the group, and a qualitative interpretation was conducted on the basis of distinguishing statements and quotes provided in participants' own words.
resultsWe identified four common views: (1) safety before all else, prioritizing physical, sexual and psychological safety; (2) hope and partnership in processes of care; (3) physical and emotional health and wellbeing; and (4) care access, continuity and partnership with families. Although different priorities were identified for each viewpoint, key priority areas that were common to all views were having an environment in the health service that fosters respect and dignity, and that consumers feel heard and listened to. In sub-group and qualitative analyses, differences were observed regarding the likelihood of consumers and carers holding each of the views, as well as by age group.
conclusionsWhile some differences were noted between the views of consumers and carers and different age groups, there was also common ground regarding what outcomes are of most importance to measure. Including these measures in evaluation frameworks would provide a way of focussing mental healthcare decisions on the aspects of mental healthcare that are of most value to consumers and carers, thereby addressing an important shortcoming of current approaches to decision-making in mental healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.