Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011–2023).
Saved in:
| Title: | Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011–2023). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Palmer, Victoria J., Wheeler, Amanda J., Jazayeri, Dana, Gulliver, Amelia, Hegarty, Kelsey, Moorhouse, Joshua, Orcher, Phillip, Banfield, Michelle |
| Source: | Journal of Mental Health. Oct2024, Vol. 33 Issue 5, p674-690. 17p. |
| Subjects: | Support groups, Psychiatry, Research funding, Research evaluation, Families, Translational research, Experience, Surveys, Caregivers, Priority (Philosophy), Adult education workshops, Evaluation |
| Abstract: | Background: Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are. Aim: This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023). Methods: A narrative framework was established with the questions: (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed? Results: Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members. Conclusion: One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported. PRISMA/PROSPERO STATEMENT: This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Mental Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
