Mental Health in Regularly Collected Nationally Representative U.S. Surveys: What's Measured and What's Missing?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Phillip M Hughes, Genevieve Graaf, Kristin H Gigli, Jennifer Murphy, Bethany Wood, Kathleen C Thomas
{"title":"Mental Health in Regularly Collected Nationally Representative U.S. Surveys: What's Measured and What's Missing?","authors":"Phillip M Hughes, Genevieve Graaf, Kristin H Gigli, Jennifer Murphy, Bethany Wood, Kathleen C Thomas","doi":"10.1007/s10488-026-01531-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To document the availability and quality of mental health measures in regularly collected national surveys in the United States. We conducted a review of the mental health measures included in eight publicly available health-focused recurring surveys capable of producing nationally-representative estimates. For each measure, we documented the constructs measured, number of items in the measure, the populations for whom the measure is collected, and the years in which the measure was collected. We examined peer-reviewed literature for psychometric properties of the measures. U.S. national surveys vary substantially in their measurement of mental health constructs in terms of the number of constructs (3-15), measure complexity (1 item - 233 items), populations covered, years administered, and the proportion of constructs that have validated measures (0%-100%). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey offered the best mix of mental health measures (9; 56% validated), years covered (1996-Present), and related health information; however, each of the surveys offered distinct advantages in terms of the geographic information available (e.g., national, state, census tract), populations covered (e.g., children, teens, and/or adults) and measured mental health constructs (conditions, the impact of those conditions, and mental health service use). Mental health is measured in various ways across the nationally-representative surveys, with each survey offering distinct advantages and disadvantages. Mental health researchers should consider these differences when using national survey data. Future research should attempt to validate the mental health measures used in these surveys and efforts should be made to address existing gaps in measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-026-01531-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To document the availability and quality of mental health measures in regularly collected national surveys in the United States. We conducted a review of the mental health measures included in eight publicly available health-focused recurring surveys capable of producing nationally-representative estimates. For each measure, we documented the constructs measured, number of items in the measure, the populations for whom the measure is collected, and the years in which the measure was collected. We examined peer-reviewed literature for psychometric properties of the measures. U.S. national surveys vary substantially in their measurement of mental health constructs in terms of the number of constructs (3-15), measure complexity (1 item - 233 items), populations covered, years administered, and the proportion of constructs that have validated measures (0%-100%). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey offered the best mix of mental health measures (9; 56% validated), years covered (1996-Present), and related health information; however, each of the surveys offered distinct advantages in terms of the geographic information available (e.g., national, state, census tract), populations covered (e.g., children, teens, and/or adults) and measured mental health constructs (conditions, the impact of those conditions, and mental health service use). Mental health is measured in various ways across the nationally-representative surveys, with each survey offering distinct advantages and disadvantages. Mental health researchers should consider these differences when using national survey data. Future research should attempt to validate the mental health measures used in these surveys and efforts should be made to address existing gaps in measurement.

定期收集的具有全国代表性的美国调查中的心理健康:测量了什么,遗漏了什么?
在美国定期收集的全国调查中记录心理健康措施的可用性和质量。我们对八项可公开获得的以健康为重点的经常性调查中包括的心理健康措施进行了审查,这些调查能够产生具有全国代表性的估计。对于每个测量,我们记录了测量的结构、测量中的项目数量、收集测量的人群以及收集测量的年份。我们检查了同行评议的文献,以了解这些测量方法的心理测量特性。美国全国调查在心理健康构图的测量方面存在很大差异,包括构图的数量(3-15)、测量的复杂性(1项- 233项)、覆盖的人群、管理的年限以及有效测量的构图比例(0%-100%)。医疗支出小组调查提供了心理健康措施的最佳组合(9项;56%得到证实)、涵盖年限(1996年至今)和相关健康信息;然而,每一项调查在可获得的地理信息(例如,国家、州、人口普查区)、涵盖的人口(例如,儿童、青少年和/或成人)和测量的心理健康结构(条件、这些条件的影响和心理健康服务的使用)方面都具有明显的优势。在具有全国代表性的调查中,以各种方式衡量心理健康,每项调查都有明显的优点和缺点。心理健康研究人员在使用国家调查数据时应该考虑到这些差异。未来的研究应试图验证这些调查中使用的心理健康措施,并应努力解决测量中的现有差距。
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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书