What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Rachel O'Loughlin, Caroline Lambert, Gemma Olsen, Kate Thwaites, Keir Saltmarsh, Julie Anderson, Nancy Devlin, Harriet Hiscock, Kim Dalziel
{"title":"What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study.","authors":"Rachel O'Loughlin, Caroline Lambert, Gemma Olsen, Kate Thwaites, Keir Saltmarsh, Julie Anderson, Nancy Devlin, Harriet Hiscock, Kim Dalziel","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01239-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"150"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552116/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01239-y","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

Background: The 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.

Methods: Participants (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.

Results: We 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.

Conclusions: While 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.

消费者和护理者对精神卫生保健评估测量的优先考虑是什么?一项 Q 方法研究的结果。
背景:本研究的目的是确定并描述心理健康挑战亲身经历者--消费者、照护者、家人和支持者--对他们认为应纳入健康经济评估的最重要措施的共同看法:参与者(n=111)为居住在澳大利亚维多利亚州的人,他们被认定为精神保健消费者(n=38);护理者、家庭成员和/或支持者(n=43);或两者(n=30)。基于 Q 方法的因子分析被用来识别持有相似观点的人群集群。根据群体特征对共同观点进行了描述,并根据与会者自己提供的有区别的陈述和引语进行了定性分析:我们确定了四种共同观点:(1) 安全高于一切,优先考虑身体、性和心理安全;(2) 护理过程中的希望和伙伴关系;(3) 身心健康和幸福;(4) 获得护理的机会、连续性以及与家庭的伙伴关系。虽然每种观点都有不同的优先考虑事项,但所有观点共同的关键优先领域是在医疗服务中营造一个促进尊重和尊严的环境,以及让消费者感觉到自己的声音被倾听。在分组和定性分析中,观察到了消费者和护理者持有每种观点的可能性以及不同年龄组的差异:结论:虽然消费者和照护者以及不同年龄组的观点存在一些差异,但在衡量哪些结果最重要方面也存在共同点。将这些衡量标准纳入评估框架中,可以将心理保健决策的重点放在对消费者和照护者最有价值的心理保健方面,从而解决目前心理保健决策方法的一个重要缺陷。
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