Kassandra Hon , Mark Boyes , Penelope Hasking , Katrina Hon , Stephen P. Lewis
{"title":"对披露和寻求心理健康问题帮助的决策辅助工具的范围审查","authors":"Kassandra Hon , Mark Boyes , Penelope Hasking , Katrina Hon , Stephen P. Lewis","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Globally, there is a large discrepancy between the prevalence of mental health concerns and the proportion of people who disclose or seek help for their mental health. As such, decision-aid tools have recently emerged in the mental health context to facilitate the disclosure and help-seeking process. Given recent developments in this field, a synthesis of the literature is needed to consolidate existing decision-aid tools and assess their effectiveness, particularly in facilitating the disclosure or help-seeking process. This scoping review aimed to capture and synthesise the growing literature on decision-aid tools designed to support people in the decision to disclose or seek help for their mental health concerns. The review considered empirical studies, including theses and dissertations that matched the following criteria: 1) focused on populations with a mental health concern, 2) reported the development and/or evaluation of a decision-aid tool, and 3) assessed a tool specifically designed to facilitate the disclosure or help-seeking process, or reported on at least one disclosure or help-seeking related outcome. The review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley's framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines for scoping reviews. The findings of the review indicate that decision-aid tools can support various cognitive-emotional processes relevant to decision-making. There was also evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of decision-aid tools in increasing the rates of disclosure and help-seeking behaviours for mental health concerns. Overall, decision-aid tools appear to be a promising approach to enhance the effectiveness of disclosure and help-seeking decisions in the mental health context.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 102628"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of decision-aid tools for disclosure and help-seeking of mental health concerns\",\"authors\":\"Kassandra Hon , Mark Boyes , Penelope Hasking , Katrina Hon , Stephen P. Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Globally, there is a large discrepancy between the prevalence of mental health concerns and the proportion of people who disclose or seek help for their mental health. As such, decision-aid tools have recently emerged in the mental health context to facilitate the disclosure and help-seeking process. Given recent developments in this field, a synthesis of the literature is needed to consolidate existing decision-aid tools and assess their effectiveness, particularly in facilitating the disclosure or help-seeking process. This scoping review aimed to capture and synthesise the growing literature on decision-aid tools designed to support people in the decision to disclose or seek help for their mental health concerns. The review considered empirical studies, including theses and dissertations that matched the following criteria: 1) focused on populations with a mental health concern, 2) reported the development and/or evaluation of a decision-aid tool, and 3) assessed a tool specifically designed to facilitate the disclosure or help-seeking process, or reported on at least one disclosure or help-seeking related outcome. The review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley's framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines for scoping reviews. The findings of the review indicate that decision-aid tools can support various cognitive-emotional processes relevant to decision-making. There was also evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of decision-aid tools in increasing the rates of disclosure and help-seeking behaviours for mental health concerns. Overall, decision-aid tools appear to be a promising approach to enhance the effectiveness of disclosure and help-seeking decisions in the mental health context.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"120 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000959\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000959","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A scoping review of decision-aid tools for disclosure and help-seeking of mental health concerns
Globally, there is a large discrepancy between the prevalence of mental health concerns and the proportion of people who disclose or seek help for their mental health. As such, decision-aid tools have recently emerged in the mental health context to facilitate the disclosure and help-seeking process. Given recent developments in this field, a synthesis of the literature is needed to consolidate existing decision-aid tools and assess their effectiveness, particularly in facilitating the disclosure or help-seeking process. This scoping review aimed to capture and synthesise the growing literature on decision-aid tools designed to support people in the decision to disclose or seek help for their mental health concerns. The review considered empirical studies, including theses and dissertations that matched the following criteria: 1) focused on populations with a mental health concern, 2) reported the development and/or evaluation of a decision-aid tool, and 3) assessed a tool specifically designed to facilitate the disclosure or help-seeking process, or reported on at least one disclosure or help-seeking related outcome. The review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley's framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines for scoping reviews. The findings of the review indicate that decision-aid tools can support various cognitive-emotional processes relevant to decision-making. There was also evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of decision-aid tools in increasing the rates of disclosure and help-seeking behaviours for mental health concerns. Overall, decision-aid tools appear to be a promising approach to enhance the effectiveness of disclosure and help-seeking decisions in the mental health context.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.