建立调查男性自杀风险和康复的研究重点:与生活经验专家的修正德尔菲研究。

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Susanna Bennett, Kathyrn A. Robb, Johnny Andoh-Arthur, Amy Chandler, Anne Cleary, Kylie King, John Oliffe, Simon Rice, Jonathan Scourfield, Martin Seager, Zac Seidler, Tiago C. Zortea, Rory C. O'Connor
{"title":"建立调查男性自杀风险和康复的研究重点:与生活经验专家的修正德尔菲研究。","authors":"Susanna Bennett, Kathyrn A. Robb, Johnny Andoh-Arthur, Amy Chandler, Anne Cleary, Kylie King, John Oliffe, Simon Rice, Jonathan Scourfield, Martin Seager, Zac Seidler, Tiago C. Zortea, Rory C. O'Connor","doi":"10.1037/men0000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. This study uses the Delphi expert consensus method to work with lived-experience experts and establish research priorities to advance our understanding of male suicide risk and recovery. Methods. Items for the Delphi were generated via findings from two recent quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews on male suicide, a comprehensive grey literature search, responses to a global survey on male suicide, and feedback from a panel of 10 international academic/clinical male suicide experts. A 2-round Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among 242 lived-experience experts representing 34 countries on 135 potential male suicide research questions. Panellists were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘ should not be included ’ to ‘ essential ’ . Consensus was defined as 80% of respondents scoring an item as “Essential” or “Important” . Results. After 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 87 items. The final questions were then grouped by the author team and expert academic/clinical panel into thematic clusters to create a 22-point agenda of research priorities. Limitations. Like all methodologies, there are weaknesses to the Delphi method, not least that the experts employed in a Delphi study do not represent all experts on a topic. We note that many items that did not make it to the top of the research agenda related to minority experiences. All the questions prioritised in this agenda can be applied to different demographics. However, minority populations may require tailored Delphi ’s using expert panels drawn specifically from those groups. Conclusion. A final agenda of 22 research priorities was developed. Questions related to ten thematic domains: 1. Relationships with others, 2. Relationship with self, 3. Relationship with emotions, 4. Mental Health, 5. Suicidal behaviours, 6. Early life experiences, 7. Structural challenges, 8. Cultural challenges, 9. At-risk groups, and 10. Support and recovery. The three highest endorsed items related to loneliness and isolation (98%), feelings of failure (97%), and sources of stress and emotional pain (96%) for men who are suicidal.","PeriodicalId":47981,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Men & Masculinities","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing research priorities for investigating male suicide risk and recovery: A modified Delphi study with lived-experience experts.\",\"authors\":\"Susanna Bennett, Kathyrn A. Robb, Johnny Andoh-Arthur, Amy Chandler, Anne Cleary, Kylie King, John Oliffe, Simon Rice, Jonathan Scourfield, Martin Seager, Zac Seidler, Tiago C. Zortea, Rory C. O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/men0000448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective. This study uses the Delphi expert consensus method to work with lived-experience experts and establish research priorities to advance our understanding of male suicide risk and recovery. Methods. Items for the Delphi were generated via findings from two recent quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews on male suicide, a comprehensive grey literature search, responses to a global survey on male suicide, and feedback from a panel of 10 international academic/clinical male suicide experts. A 2-round Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among 242 lived-experience experts representing 34 countries on 135 potential male suicide research questions. Panellists were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘ should not be included ’ to ‘ essential ’ . Consensus was defined as 80% of respondents scoring an item as “Essential” or “Important” . Results. After 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 87 items. The final questions were then grouped by the author team and expert academic/clinical panel into thematic clusters to create a 22-point agenda of research priorities. Limitations. Like all methodologies, there are weaknesses to the Delphi method, not least that the experts employed in a Delphi study do not represent all experts on a topic. We note that many items that did not make it to the top of the research agenda related to minority experiences. All the questions prioritised in this agenda can be applied to different demographics. However, minority populations may require tailored Delphi ’s using expert panels drawn specifically from those groups. Conclusion. A final agenda of 22 research priorities was developed. Questions related to ten thematic domains: 1. Relationships with others, 2. Relationship with self, 3. Relationship with emotions, 4. Mental Health, 5. Suicidal behaviours, 6. Early life experiences, 7. Structural challenges, 8. Cultural challenges, 9. At-risk groups, and 10. Support and recovery. The three highest endorsed items related to loneliness and isolation (98%), feelings of failure (97%), and sources of stress and emotional pain (96%) for men who are suicidal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology of Men & Masculinities\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology of Men & Masculinities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000448\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Men & Masculinities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000448","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Establishing research priorities for investigating male suicide risk and recovery: A modified Delphi study with lived-experience experts.
Objective. This study uses the Delphi expert consensus method to work with lived-experience experts and establish research priorities to advance our understanding of male suicide risk and recovery. Methods. Items for the Delphi were generated via findings from two recent quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews on male suicide, a comprehensive grey literature search, responses to a global survey on male suicide, and feedback from a panel of 10 international academic/clinical male suicide experts. A 2-round Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among 242 lived-experience experts representing 34 countries on 135 potential male suicide research questions. Panellists were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘ should not be included ’ to ‘ essential ’ . Consensus was defined as 80% of respondents scoring an item as “Essential” or “Important” . Results. After 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 87 items. The final questions were then grouped by the author team and expert academic/clinical panel into thematic clusters to create a 22-point agenda of research priorities. Limitations. Like all methodologies, there are weaknesses to the Delphi method, not least that the experts employed in a Delphi study do not represent all experts on a topic. We note that many items that did not make it to the top of the research agenda related to minority experiences. All the questions prioritised in this agenda can be applied to different demographics. However, minority populations may require tailored Delphi ’s using expert panels drawn specifically from those groups. Conclusion. A final agenda of 22 research priorities was developed. Questions related to ten thematic domains: 1. Relationships with others, 2. Relationship with self, 3. Relationship with emotions, 4. Mental Health, 5. Suicidal behaviours, 6. Early life experiences, 7. Structural challenges, 8. Cultural challenges, 9. At-risk groups, and 10. Support and recovery. The three highest endorsed items related to loneliness and isolation (98%), feelings of failure (97%), and sources of stress and emotional pain (96%) for men who are suicidal.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology of Men & Masculinities
Psychology of Men & Masculinities PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Psychology of Men & Masculinity is devoted to the dissemination of research, theory, and clinical scholarship that advances the psychology of men and masculinity. This discipline is defined broadly as the study of how boys" and men"s psychology is influenced and shaped by both sex and gender, and encompasses both the study of biological sex differences and similarities as well as of the social construction of gender. We are interested in work that arises from applied fields, such as clinical, counseling, and school psychology, and foundational areas such as social, developmental, and cognitive psychology, and the study of emotions. We welcome research using diverse methodologies, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
×
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