Mental health deserves better: Resisting the dilution of specialist pre-registration mental health nurse education in the United Kingdom.

This article aims to draw attention to increasing genericism in nurse education in the United Kingdom, which sees less specialist mental health education for mental health nursing students and offers opposition to such direction. In 2018, the Nursing and Midwifery Council produced the 'Future Nurse' standards which directed changes to pre-registration nurse education. This led to dissatisfaction from many mental health nurses, specifically regarding reduced mental health content for students studying mental health nursing. Concerns have been raised through public forum and evolved into a grassroots national movement 'Mental Health Deserves Better' (#MHDeservesBetter). This is a position paper which presents the perspective of many mental health nurse academics working at universities within the United Kingdom. Mental health nurse academics collaborated to develop ideas and articulate arguments and perspectives which present a strong position on the requirement for specialist pre-registration mental health nurse education. The key themes explored are; a conflict of ideologies in nursing, no parity of esteem, physical health care needs to be contextualized, the unique nature of mental health nursing, ethical tensions and values conflict, implications for practice, necessary improvements overlooked and the dangers of honesty and academic 'freedom'. The paper concludes by asserting a strong position on the need for a change of direction away from genericism and calls on mental health nurses to rise from the ashes to advocate for a quality education necessary to ensure quality care delivery. The quality of mental health care provided by mental health nurses has many influences, yet the foundation offered through pre-registration education is one of the most valuable. If the education of mental health nurses does not attend to the distinct and unique role of the mental health nurse, standards of mental health care may diminish without assertive action from mental health nurses and allies.

Community Partnership Guide for Engaging with Academic Researchers.

Community engagement increases the relevance of research to underserved populations and can encourage diverse populations to participate in research. The Institute of Translational Health Sciences partnered with the Health Equity Research Community Advisory Council (an advisory group for a Clinical and Translational Science Award) to develop a community-facing Community Partnership Guide for Engaging with Academic Researchers. The Guide includes a seven-item screener to assist community organizations with deciding which requests from researchers to pursue more fully, step-by-step guidance on how to engage with academic investigators on core project elements (e.g., design, budget), and a template for a memorandum of understanding.

Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests.

Genetic tests are increasingly available for use in traditional clinical practice settings and through direct-to-consumer marketing. The need for evidence-based information and guidance on their appropriate use has never been more apparent. The independent Working Group of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Initiative commissions evidence-based reviews and develops recommendations to inform decision making surrounding the implementation of genetic tests and other applications of genomic technologies into clinical practice. A critical component of this analysis involves the identification and appropriate weighting of relevant health outcomes from genetic testing. Impacts of testing on morbidity and mortality are central considerations although research to document such outcomes can be challenging to conduct. In considering the broader impacts of genetic tests on the individual, familial and societal levels, psychosocial outcomes often take on increasing importance, and their systematic evaluation is a challenge for traditional methods of evidence-based review. Incorporating these types of outcomes in evidence-based processes is possible, however, and necessary to extract balanced and complete (or as complete as available data will allow) information on potential benefits and on potential harms. The framework used by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group in considering, categorizing, and weighting health-related outcomes as applied to genomic technologies is presented here.

On the edge of tomorrow: fitting genomics into public health policy.

The project to map the human genome and the field of genetics in general offer unique opportunities for not only clinical medicine, but also for public health to address and prevent disease. At the same time, genomics is fraught with ethical challenges, not the least of which is how to prevent misuse and abuse of genetic information by virtue of the legal powers conferred on public health organizations. This article examines the role that public health can perform in the 21st Century in using the knowledge gained from the human genome project, including how to address the barriers to widespread application. The article also examines the challenges facing public health in dealing with the legal and ethical issues arising from genomics and in avoiding misapplication. While the opportunities that genomics offers public health agencies are unprecedented, so too are the challenges, which include the fact that genomics exists within a legal and policy paradigm that is the opposite of the one in which public health has traditionally existed. The danger of abuse and misuse, therefore, is very real.