RESUMO
Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several EUS-specific stents have become available. It has been claimed that some of these stents have lumen-apposing properties, but objective data measuring such properties are not available. The aim of this study is to measure the lumen-apposing force (LAF) of these stents. METHODS: The LAF of 3 EUS-specific metallic stents (stents A, N, and S) were compared in an ex vivo setting. Four types of anastomoses were performed with the stents including cholecysto-duodenal, cholecysto-gastric, gastro-gastric, and gastro-jejunal and compared with a hand-sewn (HS) equivalent of the anastomosis. The outcome parameter was the LAF created by each type of stent. RESULTS: Sixty-four anastomoses were created. The overall mean (standard deviation) LAFs were significantly higher for stents A and S (P < .001). This difference persisted regardless of the type of anastomosis: gastro-gastric (P = .002), gastro-jejunal (P = .005), cholecysto-gastric (P = .002), and cholecysto-jejunal (P = .003). The differences in LAF created by each type of stent across different types of anastomoses were also compared. A trend to significance was observed in the anastomoses created by stent N (P = .064) and stent A (P =.052); a significant difference in LAF was observed among different anastomoses created by stent S (P = .015). The LAF created by HS anastomosis was significantly higher than that for all stents across all anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS: Stents A and S had a higher LAF. The use of these stents should be considered when performing EUS-guided transmural luminal anastomoses in non-adherent organs. Further studies are required to confirm the clinical efficacies of these EUS-specific stents.