2016
DOI: 10.1590/2237-6089-2016-0046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The future of psychiatric research

Abstract: Psychiatric disorders place considerable burden on individuals and on public health. Funding for research in psychiatry is less than ideal, but even so high quality research is being conducted at many centers. However, these studies have not impacted clinical practice as much as expected. The complexity of psychiatric disorders is one of the reasons why we face difficulties in translating research results to patient care. New technologies and improved methodologies are now available and must be incorporated to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…25 of them were explicitly the writers' opinions, these papers were varied and perspective pieces from every area of knowledge, including editorials planning the future of psychiatric research, comments based on real-life experience in training young researchers and cultural competencies and debates on last MHR evolutions. There were arguments for common strategies, users involvement, more funding (especially from private not-for-profit sources), equitably shared between neurosciences and traditional psychiatric approaches, or demands for more capacitybuilding, multidisciplinary approaches, collaborations with the pharma industry, and for a public health paradigm in mental health research as well as bridging the psychotherapeutic and pharmacological research (Nutt, 2005, Erickson and Erickson, 2007, Atkins and Frazier, 2011, Drake, 2013, Owen, 2014, Schachar and Ickowicz, 2014, Okkels et al, 2015, Fitzgerald, 2015, Caldieraro, 2016, Sweetland et al, 2016, Wessely and Nicholson, 2016, Lewis-Fernández et al, 2016, Bhui, 2016, Moss et al, 2016, Bhugra et al, 2017. Papers also made the cases for specific issues such as European psychotraumatology (Şar, 2015), women's and veteran women mental health (Blehar, 2006, Bastian et al, 2013, the development of qualitative research in psychiatry (Crabb and Chur-Hansen, 2009), the inclusion of minorities in research (Forsyth and Stoff, 2009, Jeste et al, 2009, Anand, 2012.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 of them were explicitly the writers' opinions, these papers were varied and perspective pieces from every area of knowledge, including editorials planning the future of psychiatric research, comments based on real-life experience in training young researchers and cultural competencies and debates on last MHR evolutions. There were arguments for common strategies, users involvement, more funding (especially from private not-for-profit sources), equitably shared between neurosciences and traditional psychiatric approaches, or demands for more capacitybuilding, multidisciplinary approaches, collaborations with the pharma industry, and for a public health paradigm in mental health research as well as bridging the psychotherapeutic and pharmacological research (Nutt, 2005, Erickson and Erickson, 2007, Atkins and Frazier, 2011, Drake, 2013, Owen, 2014, Schachar and Ickowicz, 2014, Okkels et al, 2015, Fitzgerald, 2015, Caldieraro, 2016, Sweetland et al, 2016, Wessely and Nicholson, 2016, Lewis-Fernández et al, 2016, Bhui, 2016, Moss et al, 2016, Bhugra et al, 2017. Papers also made the cases for specific issues such as European psychotraumatology (Şar, 2015), women's and veteran women mental health (Blehar, 2006, Bastian et al, 2013, the development of qualitative research in psychiatry (Crabb and Chur-Hansen, 2009), the inclusion of minorities in research (Forsyth and Stoff, 2009, Jeste et al, 2009, Anand, 2012.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%