Research priorities in mental health, Part 2: an evaluation of the current research effort against stakeholders' priorities

被引:29
作者
Griffiths, KM [1 ]
Jorm, AF [1 ]
Christensen, H [1 ]
Medway, J [1 ]
Dear, KBG [1 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Mental Hlth Res Ctr, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
关键词
carers; consumers; general practitioners; mental health; nurses; psychiatrists; psychologists; research priorities;
D O I
10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.01024.x
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Objective: To examine the current distribution of mental health research in Australia and compare this with the priorities of various stakeholder groups. Method: A content analysis was carried out on a year's worth of published articles and a year's worth of competitive research grants. A questionnaire for stakeholders was developed in which respondents were asked to rate priorities for research using the same categories. Questionnaires were sent to mental health researchers, members of panels that evaluate mental health research grant applications, general practitioners, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, mental health nurses, mental health consumer and carer advocates, and members of the National Mental Health Working Group. Results: Different groups of stakeholders tended to have differing perspectives on research priorities, with some major differences between committees that evaluate research grants and consumer and carer groups. Different stakeholder groups also tended to obtain their information about research from different sources. However, there were also a number of areas of agreement. When different research topics are considered, the following tended to be under-researched: affective disorders, suicide, primary care and community settings, prevention and promotion, evaluation of services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and socially and economically disadvantaged people. Conclusions: It is of concern that committees that evaluate research are guided by different values from consumers and carers in setting priorities. Nevertheless, there is consensus across stakeholder groups that a number of areas should be a high priority.
引用
收藏
页码:327 / 339
页数:13
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   The Internet and mental health literacy [J].
Christensen, H ;
Griffiths, K .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 34 (06) :975-979
[2]  
*COMMW DEP HLTH AG, 1998, MENT HLTH PROM PREV
[3]   Voices from practice: Mental health nurses identify research priorities [J].
Davidson, P ;
MerrittGray, M ;
Buchanan, J ;
Noel, J .
ARCHIVES OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING, 1997, 11 (06) :340-345
[4]   Lay perspectives: advantages for health research [J].
Entwistle, VA ;
Renfrew, MJ ;
Yearley, S ;
Forrester, J ;
Lamont, T .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 316 (7129) :463-466
[5]  
Grilo CM, 1997, PSYCHOPHARMACOL BULL, V33, P321
[6]  
JOHNSON M, 1995, PSYCHIATR SERV, V46, P493
[7]   Research priorities in mental health, part 1: an evaluation of the current research effort against the criteria of disease burden and health system costs [J].
Jorm, AF ;
Griffiths, KM ;
Christensen, H ;
Medway, J .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2002, 36 (03) :322-326
[8]  
REDMAN S, 1990, BRIT J ADDICT, V85, P942
[9]   THE BURDEN OF ILLNESS THAT IS IMPOSED BY DRUG-ABUSE AND THE ALLOCATION OF RESEARCH MONIES IN THE FIELD - 3 VIEWS [J].
SANSONFISHER, RW ;
REDMAN, S ;
OAK, S ;
WEBB, G .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 1988, 149 (03) :134-138
[10]  
*STATA CORP, 2001, STATA VERS 7 0