Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions.
Breedvelt, Josefien J F; Zamperoni, Victoria; South, Emily; Uphoff, Eleonora P; Gilbody, Simon; Bockting, Claudi L H; Churchill, Rachel; Kousoulis, Antonis A.
Afiliação
  • Breedvelt JJF; Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK.
  • Zamperoni V; Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • South E; Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK.
  • Uphoff EP; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
  • Gilbody S; Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
  • Bockting CLH; Mental Health and Addictions Research Group, University of York, York, UK.
  • Churchill R; Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Kousoulis AA; Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Eur J Public Health ; 30(3): 539-545, 2020 06 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32236548
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Consistent and appropriate measurement is needed in order to improve understanding and evaluation of preventative interventions. This review aims to identify individual-level measurement tools used to evaluate mental health prevention interventions to inform harmonization of outcome measurement in this area.

METHODS:

Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and OpenGrey for studies published between 2008 and 2018 that aimed to evaluate prevention interventions for common mental health problems in adults and used at least one measurement scale (PROSPERO CRD42018095519). For each study, mental health measurement tools were identified and reviewed for reliability, validity, ease-of-use and cultural sensitivity.

RESULTS:

A total of 127 studies were identified that used 65 mental health measurement tools. Most were used by a single study (57%, N = 37) and measured depression (N = 20) or overall mental health (N = 18). The most commonly used questionnaire (15%) was the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. A further 125 tools were identified which measured non-mental health-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:

There was little agreement in measurement tools used across mental health prevention studies, which may hinder comparison across studies. Future research on measurement properties and acceptability of measurements in applied and scientific settings could be explored. Further work on supporting researchers to decide on appropriate outcome measurement for prevention would be beneficial for the field.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Saúde Mental Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Public Health Assunto da revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Saúde Mental Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Public Health Assunto da revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido