Findings suggest that traumatic and harmful experiences within psychiatric settings warrant increased attention.

Lower income mothers who bring their children for mental health services also have high rates of depression and anxiety, yet few seek help. Maternal and child mental health are intimately intertwined; thus, the distress of both is likely to continue if the mother's needs are unaddressed. Because mothers overcome numerous instrumental challenges to help their children, the authors identify potential perceptual barriers to mothers' help seeking. An ethnographic analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews with 127 distressed mothers suggests several critical perceptual factors. For example, mothers attributed their distress to external causes (e.g., poverty, negative life stressors), which they believed individually focused mental health services could not affect. Interviewees also anticipated negative ramifications for seeking care, including being labeled unfit mothers, and thus potentially losing custody of their children. The authors discuss the implications of these and other key themes for engaging lower income mothers and their children.

The findings suggest that many mental health consumers have had a lifetime sanctuary experience that they perceived as harmful. They also offered suggestions for how the mental health service delivery system might reduce the potential for sanctuary harm experiences.

Increasingly, contemporary mental health services research projects aim to combine qualitative and quantitative components. Yet researchers often lack theoretical and practical guidance for undertaking such studies. In September 2006 the authors convened under the auspices of the National Institute of Mental Health at a working conference, “Mixed Methods in Community-Based Mental Health Services Research.” This meeting provided the opportunity for participants to share their experiences in conducting mixed-methods research, to critically consider problems they had encountered and their solutions, and to develop guiding principles for others conducting similar research. The authors' discussions, which are described in this article, emphasize that the problems encountered by mixed-methods research teams are rarely simple misunderstandings but often reflect epistemological differences that are overlooked in the study planning phases. Failure to acknowledge these different worldviews may result in significant tensions between members of the study team, use of qualitative methods that are insufficient or inappropriate for a particular research question, or serious conflicts when team members belatedly discover they are interpreting key concepts—or each other's research techniques—differently. The authors conclude that ongoing communication is the organizing principle for robust and effective mixed-methods research. Among the recommendations for preventing problems are collaboration between quantitative and qualitative researchers during the study design phase; open acknowledgement of the philosophical approaches brought to the study by various team members; and because not all challenges can be anticipated, a shared willingness to negotiate emerging problems.

Increasingly, contemporary mental health services research projects aim to combine qualitative and quantitative components. Yet researchers often lack theoretical and practical guidance for undertaking such studies. In September 2006 the authors convened under the auspices of the National Institute of Mental Health at a working conference, "Mixed Methods in Community-Based Mental Health Services Research." This meeting provided the opportunity for participants to share their experiences in conducting mixed-methods research, to critically consider problems they had encountered and their solutions, and to develop guiding principles for others conducting similar research. The authors' discussions, which are described in this article, emphasize that the problems encountered by mixed-methods research teams are rarely simple misunderstandings but often reflect epistemological differences that are overlooked in the study planning phases. Failure to acknowledge these different worldviews may result in significant tensions between members of the study team, use of qualitative methods that are insufficient or inappropriate for a particular research question, or serious conflicts when team members belatedly discover they are interpreting key concepts -- or each other's research techniques -- differently. The authors conclude that ongoing communication is the organizing principle for robust and effective mixed-methods research. Among the recommendations for preventing problems are collaboration between quantitative and qualitative researchers during the study design phase; open acknowledgement of the philosophical approaches brought to the study by various team members; and because not all challenges can be anticipated, a shared willingness to negotiate emerging problems.