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.
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.