data on self-harm, suicidality, or intimate partner violence. 8 We believe it is possible, and cost-effective, to generate high-quality evidence of mental health needs in the current crisis. We recommend using random sampling to reduce risk of bias, allow quantification of non-response, and permit valid statistical analysis. A major investigation into online survey panels 9 concluded that "Researchers should avoid nonprobability online panels when...[the] objective is to accurately estimate population values." When determining the prevalence of the mental health effects of COVID-19, investigators should use rigorous methods that sample from the whole population to reduce erroneous conclusions and potentially damaging actions. This approach might be more expensive but is essential to gain reliable insights into how to mitigate psychological risks during this and future pandemics. Cutting corners to provide quick, cheap answers will result in poorer quality evidence, poorer policy, and wasted resources in the longer term. We can and must do better.AJ is collaborating with the Mental Health Foundation in their survey of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. MH reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, outside the submitted work.
BackgroundInternet based social media websites represent a growing space for interpersonal interaction. Research has been conducted in relation to the potential role of social media in the support of individuals with physical health conditions. However, limited research exists exploring such utilisation by individuals with experience of mental health problems. It could be proposed that access to wider support networks and knowledge could be beneficial for all users, although this positive interpretation has been challenged. The present study focusses on a specific discussion as a case study to assess the role of the website www.twitter.com as a medium for interpersonal communication by individuals with experience of mental disorder and possible source of feedback to mental health service providers.MethodAn electronic search was performed to identify material contributing to an online conversation entitled #dearmentalhealthprofessionals. Output from the search strategy was combined in such a way that repeated material was eliminated and all individual material anonymised. The remaining textual material was reviewed and combined in a thematic analysis to identify common themes of discussion.Results515 unique communications were identified relating to the specified conversation. The majority of the material related to four overarching thematic headings: The impact of diagnosis on personal identity and as a facilitator for accessing care; Balance of power between professional and service user; Therapeutic relationship and developing professional communication; and Support provision through medication, crisis planning, service provision and the wider society. Remaining material was identified as being direct expression of thanks, self-referential in its content relating to the on-going conversation or providing a link to external resources and further discussion.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrates the utility of online social media as both a discursive space in which individuals with experience of mental disorder may share information and develop understanding, and a medium of feedback to mental health service providers. Further research is required to establish potential individual benefit from the utilisation of such networks, its suitability as a means of service provision feedback and the potential role for, and user acceptability of, mental health service providers operating within the space.
BackgroundShared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications.MethodsA qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought.ResultsA total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician’s beliefs regarding the service users’ insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular.ConclusionsThis project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular ‘lack of insight’, may be more effectively managed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.