危机求助热线核心成果集的开发:三小组德尔菲研究

Q3 Psychology
Sonia Curll, Kelly Mazzer, Debra Rickwood
{"title":"危机求助热线核心成果集的开发:三小组德尔菲研究","authors":"Sonia Curll,&nbsp;Kelly Mazzer,&nbsp;Debra Rickwood","doi":"10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Evidence for the effectiveness of crisis helplines is limited by inappropriate and inconsistent outcome measurement. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set that reflects the most relevant and important outcomes to help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline via any delivery mode (e.g., phone, SMS text, online chat).</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We used a three-panel Delphi method to compare and integrate the views of three expert groups: people with lived experience of accessing crisis helplines (<em>n</em> = 32), researchers with experience assessing crisis helpline outcomes (<em>n</em> = 25), and crisis helpline supporters (<em>n</em> = 58). Across two online survey rounds (89 % retention rate), participants rated the importance of 33 potential outcomes for help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline. Participants also provided open-text comments and suggestions. Outcomes that reached consensus (≥75 % agreement) by at least two panels were included in the core outcome set.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Ten outcomes met the criteria for inclusion in the core outcome set. In order of importance, these were: <em>distress, feeling heard, suicide risk, connectedness/support, hopelessness, overwhelm, non-suicidal self-injury risk, service experience, helplessness</em>, and <em>next steps</em>.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Participants self-selected and were mainly from English-speaking countries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We recommend future outcome and evaluation studies minimally measure and report the 10 outcomes identified in this study. Assessing an agreed set of meaningful outcomes will improve comparability and facilitate a deeper understanding of crisis helpline effectiveness. More work is needed to determine <em>how</em> best to assess these outcomes in the crisis helpline context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100763"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915324000490/pdfft?md5=d263f86a3dfcc2fe923bf31a392cf67a&pid=1-s2.0-S2666915324000490-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The development of a core outcome set for crisis helplines: A three-panel Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"Sonia Curll,&nbsp;Kelly Mazzer,&nbsp;Debra Rickwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Evidence for the effectiveness of crisis helplines is limited by inappropriate and inconsistent outcome measurement. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set that reflects the most relevant and important outcomes to help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline via any delivery mode (e.g., phone, SMS text, online chat).</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We used a three-panel Delphi method to compare and integrate the views of three expert groups: people with lived experience of accessing crisis helplines (<em>n</em> = 32), researchers with experience assessing crisis helpline outcomes (<em>n</em> = 25), and crisis helpline supporters (<em>n</em> = 58). Across two online survey rounds (89 % retention rate), participants rated the importance of 33 potential outcomes for help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline. Participants also provided open-text comments and suggestions. Outcomes that reached consensus (≥75 % agreement) by at least two panels were included in the core outcome set.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Ten outcomes met the criteria for inclusion in the core outcome set. In order of importance, these were: <em>distress, feeling heard, suicide risk, connectedness/support, hopelessness, overwhelm, non-suicidal self-injury risk, service experience, helplessness</em>, and <em>next steps</em>.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Participants self-selected and were mainly from English-speaking countries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We recommend future outcome and evaluation studies minimally measure and report the 10 outcomes identified in this study. Assessing an agreed set of meaningful outcomes will improve comparability and facilitate a deeper understanding of crisis helpline effectiveness. More work is needed to determine <em>how</em> best to assess these outcomes in the crisis helpline context.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100763\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915324000490/pdfft?md5=d263f86a3dfcc2fe923bf31a392cf67a&pid=1-s2.0-S2666915324000490-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915324000490\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915324000490","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景危机求助热线有效性的证据因不恰当和不一致的结果测量而受到限制。本研究旨在开发一套核心结果,以反映通过任何提供模式(如电话、短信、在线聊天)使用危机求助热线的求助者最相关、最重要的结果。方法我们采用了三小组德尔菲法,比较并整合了三个专家小组的意见:有使用危机求助热线生活经验的人(n = 32)、有危机求助热线结果评估经验的研究人员(n = 25)和危机求助热线支持者(n = 58)。通过两轮在线调查(89% 的保留率),参与者对危机求助热线 33 种潜在结果的重要性进行了评分。参与者还提供了开放文本评论和建议。至少两个小组达成共识(≥75%)的结果被纳入核心结果集。按重要性排序,这些结果是:痛苦、被倾听的感觉、自杀风险、联系/支持、绝望、不知所措、非自杀性自伤风险、服务体验、无助感和下一步措施。评估一套商定的有意义的结果将提高可比性,并有助于深入了解危机救助热线的有效性。还需要做更多的工作,以确定如何在危机救助热线的背景下最好地评估这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The development of a core outcome set for crisis helplines: A three-panel Delphi study

Background

Evidence for the effectiveness of crisis helplines is limited by inappropriate and inconsistent outcome measurement. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set that reflects the most relevant and important outcomes to help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline via any delivery mode (e.g., phone, SMS text, online chat).

Method

We used a three-panel Delphi method to compare and integrate the views of three expert groups: people with lived experience of accessing crisis helplines (n = 32), researchers with experience assessing crisis helpline outcomes (n = 25), and crisis helpline supporters (n = 58). Across two online survey rounds (89 % retention rate), participants rated the importance of 33 potential outcomes for help-seekers accessing a crisis helpline. Participants also provided open-text comments and suggestions. Outcomes that reached consensus (≥75 % agreement) by at least two panels were included in the core outcome set.

Results

Ten outcomes met the criteria for inclusion in the core outcome set. In order of importance, these were: distress, feeling heard, suicide risk, connectedness/support, hopelessness, overwhelm, non-suicidal self-injury risk, service experience, helplessness, and next steps.

Limitations

Participants self-selected and were mainly from English-speaking countries.

Conclusions

We recommend future outcome and evaluation studies minimally measure and report the 10 outcomes identified in this study. Assessing an agreed set of meaningful outcomes will improve comparability and facilitate a deeper understanding of crisis helpline effectiveness. More work is needed to determine how best to assess these outcomes in the crisis helpline context.

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
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
134 days
×
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