Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011-2023).
Palmer, Victoria J; Wheeler, Amanda J; Jazayeri, Dana; Gulliver, Amelia; Hegarty, Kelsey; Moorhouse, Joshua; Orcher, Phillip; Banfield, Michelle.
Afiliação
  • Palmer VJ; The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, The Australian National University, Carlton, Australia.
  • Wheeler AJ; The Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Jazayeri D; The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, The Australian National University, Carlton, Australia.
  • Gulliver A; Centre for Mental Health, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Hegarty K; Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Moorhouse J; The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, The Australian National University, Carlton, Australia.
  • Orcher P; The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, The Australian National University, Carlton, Australia.
  • Banfield M; Centre for Mental Health Research, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
J Ment Health ; : 1-17, 2024 Mar 27.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38536149
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are.

AIM:

This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023).

METHODS:

A narrative framework was established with the questions (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed?

RESULTS:

Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members.

CONCLUSION:

One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported.
This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Ment Health Assunto da revista: PSICOLOGIA / PSIQUIATRIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Ment Health Assunto da revista: PSICOLOGIA / PSIQUIATRIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália