School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (Jones, Pagdon); Child and Family Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa (Callejas); Department of Psychiatry, New York University, New York City (Brown); Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (Carras); Human Services Research Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Croft); New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (Pagdon); Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago (Sheehan); Department of Community and Behavioral Health, School of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane (Oluwoye); Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, and Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London (Zisman-Ilani).
Psychiatr Serv. 2023 Sep 1;74(9):902-910. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20220514. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
A growing consensus has emerged regarding the importance of stakeholder involvement in mental health services research. To identify barriers to and the extent of stakeholder involvement in participatory research, the authors undertook a mixed-methods study of researchers and community members who reported participation in such research.
Eight consultative focus groups were conducted with diverse groups of stakeholders in mental health services research (N=51 unique participants, mostly service users), followed by a survey of service users, family members, community providers, and researchers (N=98) with participatory research experience. Focus groups helped identify facilitators and barriers to meaningful research collaboration, which were operationalized in the national survey. Participants were also asked about high-priority next steps.
The barrier most strongly endorsed as a large or very large problem in the field was lack of funding for stakeholder-led mental health services research (76%), followed by lack of researcher training in participatory methods (74%) and insufficiently diverse backgrounds among stakeholders (69%). The two most frequently identified high-priority next steps were ensuring training and continuing education for researchers and stakeholders (33%) and authentically centering lived experience and reducing tokenism in research (26%).
These findings suggest a need for increased attention to and investment in the development, implementation, and sustainment of participatory methods that prioritize collaboration with direct stakeholders, particularly service users, in U.S. mental health services research. The findings also underscore the presence and potentially important role of researchers who dually identify as service users and actively contribute a broader orientation from the service user-survivor movement.
越来越多的人认识到利益相关者参与心理健康服务研究的重要性。为了确定利益相关者参与参与式研究的障碍和程度,作者对报告参与此类研究的研究人员和社区成员进行了一项混合方法研究。
对心理健康服务研究的不同利益相关者(N=51 名独特参与者,主要是服务使用者)进行了 8 次协商焦点小组,然后对有参与式研究经验的服务使用者、家庭成员、社区提供者和研究人员(N=98)进行了调查。焦点小组帮助确定了有意义的研究合作的促进因素和障碍,这些因素在全国调查中得到了实施。参与者还被问及优先考虑的下一步。
在该领域被认为是一个大或非常大问题的障碍是缺乏用于利益相关者主导的心理健康服务研究的资金(76%),其次是缺乏研究人员在参与式方法方面的培训(74%)和利益相关者之间背景不够多样化(69%)。两个最常被确定为优先考虑的下一步是确保研究人员和利益相关者的培训和继续教育(33%)以及真实地将生活经验和减少研究中的象征性放在中心(26%)。
这些发现表明,需要更加关注并投资于发展、实施和维持参与式方法,这些方法优先考虑与直接利益相关者(特别是服务使用者)合作,特别是在美国心理健康服务研究中。这些发现还强调了那些既是服务使用者又是积极从服务使用者幸存者运动中贡献更广泛方向的研究人员的存在和潜在重要作用。