Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Christine Migliorini, Megan Turville, Caitlin McDowell, JoAnne Bevilacqua, Carol Harvey
{"title":"Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists.","authors":"Christine Migliorini, Megan Turville, Caitlin McDowell, JoAnne Bevilacqua, Carol Harvey","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01195-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians' professional peak-body associations' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299392/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01195-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service.

Methods: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data.

Results: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research.

Conclusions: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians' professional peak-body associations' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.

公共心理健康中与研究相关的知识、理解和实践:社会工作者和职业治疗师的心声。
导言:以往的研究探讨了专职医疗人员在普通医疗环境中开展研究的促进因素和障碍。与普通医疗服务相比,精神卫生系统被公认为资金严重不足,功能更加不完善,因此尚不清楚已发表的促进因素和障碍是否也适用于精神卫生机构。本研究旨在探讨大型公共心理健康服务机构的专职心理健康临床医生在研究方面的知识、理解和实践:这项混合方法研究招募了 59 名职业治疗师和社会工作者,他们都在澳大利亚墨尔本的一个大都市公共心理健康服务机构工作。定量调查结果见其他报告。对 16 名参与调查的志愿者进行了半结构化访谈。对定性调查和访谈数据进行了主题分析:确定了四大主题:研究必须与临床实践相结合;知识碎片;实践中的研究;研究不是我职业身份的一部分。第三个主题 "实践中的研究 "包括四个次主题:临床角色中没有时间进行研究、沟通缺失、缺乏主人翁精神以及我需要什么来做研究:本研究发现,研究和与研究相关的活动并未被视为心理健康社会工作者和职业治疗师专业身份的一部分。解决这一问题可能有助于实现这些临床医生的专业最高机构协会的执业守则和政府规定的执业标准。我们提供了几种策略,鼓励临床医生和服务机构将研究相关活动视为临床角色的日常组成部分。如果我们认为专职医疗循证实践需要合理水平的研究相关技能和/或能力,以评估、实践、评价和调整其循证实践,那么这一点就尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信