Dataset Information

Enabling Transdisciplinary Collaboration: Stakeholder Views on Working With "Children With Mentally Ill Parents" Research Groups.

ABSTRACT: Working collaboratively and openly together with stakeholders has become a common phenomenon in research. While previous studies have gathered a clear picture on researchers' attitudes, motivations, and barriers for actively involving stakeholders in transdisciplinary research, the stakeholder perspective is yet unknown. Therefore, this paper sets out to identify how stakeholders perceive transdisciplinary collaborations with researchers. This paper in particular reveals the enablers and barriers for such collaborations from the viewpoint of stakeholders. To do so, we look at how stakeholders, who were actively involved in the governance structure of two "children with mentally ill parents" research groups in Austria, perceived their collaboration with researchers. We used a mixed-method, quantitative-qualitative design. We conducted an online survey and interviews with the members of the advisory board and competence group. These stakeholders reported great satisfaction with the transdisciplinary collaboration and emphasized the value of different expertise. As the most important enablers for successful, transdisciplinary collaboration stakeholders emphasized researchers' open-mindedness toward new perspectives and approaches, flexibility to adapt to the research process along the way, and creativity dealing with diverse backgrounds and skills. Stakeholders further underlined the importance of a person facilitating the collaboration process between researchers and stakeholders to resolve any tensions and insecurities. Concluding, researchers' attitudes, and in particular their understanding of the value of stakeholder involvement in research are key enablers for successful transdisciplinary research collaborations.

SUBMITTER: Kaisler RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649715 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ethical controversy surrounds clinical research involving seriously ill participants. While many stakeholders have opinions, the extent to which protocol volunteers themselves see human research as ethically acceptable has not been documented. To address this gap of knowledge, authors sought to assess views of healthy and ill clinical research volunteers regarding the ethical acceptability of human studies involving individuals who are ill or are potentially vulnerable.Surveys and semi-structured interviews were used to query clinical research protocol participants and a comparison group of healthy individuals. A total of 179 respondents participated in this study: 150 in protocols (60 mentally ill, 43 physically ill, and 47 healthy clinical research protocol participants) and 29 healthy individuals not enrolled in protocols. Main outcome measures included responses regarding ethical acceptability of clinical research when it presents significant burdens and risks, involves people with serious mental and physical illness, or enrolls people with other potential vulnerabilities in the research situation.Respondents expressed decreasing levels of acceptance of participation in research that posed burdens of increasing severity. Participation in protocols with possibly life-threatening consequences was perceived as least acceptable (mean = 1.82, sd = 1.29). Research on serious illnesses, including HIV, cancer, schizophrenia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, was seen as ethically acceptable across respondent groups (range of means = [4.0, 4.7]). Mentally ill volunteers expressed levels of ethical acceptability for physical illness research and mental illness research as acceptable and similar, while physically ill volunteers expressed greater ethical acceptability for physical illness research than for mental illness research. Mentally ill, physically ill, and healthy participants expressed neutral to favorable perspectives regarding the ethical acceptability of clinical research participation by potentially vulnerable subpopulations (difference in acceptability perceived by mentally ill - healthy = -0.04, CI [-0.46, 0.39]; physically ill - healthy = -0.13, CI [-0.62, -.36]).Clinical research volunteers and healthy clinical research-"naïve" individuals view studies involving ill people as ethically acceptable, and their responses reflect concern regarding research that poses considerable burdens and risks and research involving vulnerable subpopulations. Physically ill research volunteers may be more willing to see burdensome and risky research as acceptable. Mentally ill research volunteers and healthy individuals expressed similar perspectives in this study, helping to dispel a misconception that those with mental illness should be presumed to hold disparate views.

Project description:Background: Children of mentally ill parents have a three to seven times higher risk of developing mental disorders compared to the general population. For this high-risk group, specialized prevention and intervention programs have already been developed. However, there has been insufficient sytematic evaluation to date. Moreover, effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness data of the respective programs until today is very scarce and at the same time constitutes the pre-condition for the program's implementation into regular health care. Methods: The study consists of a two-group randomized controlled multicenter trial conducted at seven study sites throughout Germany and Switzerland. Participants are families with mentally ill parents and their children aged from 3 to 19 years. The intervention comprises 6 to 8 semi-structured sessions over a period of about 6 months. Topics discussed in the intervention include parental mental illness, coping, family relations and social support. Families in the control condition will receive treatment as usual. The children's mental health, assessed using the K-SADS-PL by blinded external raters will constitute the primary efficacy outcome. Further outcomes will be assessed from the parents' as well as from the children's perspectives. Participants are investigated at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline assessment. In addition to the assessment of various psychosocial outcomes, a comprehensive health-economic evaluation will be performed. Discussion: This paper describes the evaluation of a family-based intervention program for children of mentally ill parents (CHIMPs) in the regular health care system in Germany and Switzerland. A methodically sophisticated study design has been developed to reflect the complexity of the actual health care situation. This trial will contribute to the regular health care for the high-risk group of children of mentally ill parents. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02308462; German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00006806.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to new Norwegian laws, mental healthcare for adults are obligated to assess all patients who are parents and to act on their children's needs. This article describes the study protocol of implementing the interventions Family Assessment and Child Talks for children of patients in the adult psychiatry of the University Hospital of Northern Norway. The project is designed to evaluate the process of changes in clinical practice due to the implementation of two interventions. The interventions to be implemented are a standardised Family Assessment Form and the intervention called Child Talks. The family assessment form is an intervention to identify children of mentally ill parents and their needs. The intervention Child Talks is a health-promoting and preventive intervention where the mental health workers talk with the family about the situation of the children and their needs.Methods/designThere are two groups of participants in this study: (1) mental health workers in the clinic (N=220) and (2) patients who are parents (N=200) receiving treatment in the clinic. (1) In the evaluation of clinical practice, the authors use a pre-test, post-test and 1-year follow-up design. At pre-test, the authors evaluate status quo among mental health workers in the clinic regarding knowledge, attitudes, collaborative routines and clinical practice related to families with parental mental illness. After the pre-test is finished, the project move on to implement the interventions Family Assessment Form and Child Talks in the clinic. At post-test and 1-year follow-up, the authors evaluate the impact of implementing the Family Assessment Form in terms of how many children were identified and offered Child Talks in the clinic or referred to other services for additional support. (2) In the evaluation of parents/patients experience with the interventions, the authors use a pre-test post-test design. To identify children of mentally ill patients, the authors collect data on demographical variables for the patient and the child at pre-measures, as well as data on parental competence (PSOC) and parental concerns (PEDS) about their children. At post-measures, the authors evaluate the impact of the intervention in terms of user satisfaction, as well as changes between pre- and post-measures on parental competence (PSOC) and parental concerns (PEDS) about their children.DiscussionThe implication of implementing new interventions to safeguard children of mentally ill patients and the limitation of not measuring child development directly are discussed.

Project description:This paper explores the evolution of research collaboration networks in the 'stakeholder theory and management' (STM) discipline and identifies the longitudinal effect of co-authorship networks on research performance, i.e., research productivity and citation counts. Research articles totaling 6,127 records from 1989 to 2020 were harvested from the Web of Science Database and transformed into bibliometric data using Bibexcel, followed by applying social network analysis to compare and analyze scientific collaboration networks at the author, institution and country levels. This work maps the structure of these networks across three consecutive sub-periods (t1: 1989-1999; t2: 2000-2010; t3: 2011-2020) and explores the association between authors' social network properties and their research performance. The results show that authors collaboration network was fragmented all through the periods, however, with an increase in the number and size of cliques. Similar results were observed in the institutional collaboration network but with less fragmentation between institutions reflected by the increase in network density as time passed. The international collaboration had evolved from an uncondensed, fragmented and highly centralized network, to a highly dense and less fragmented network in t3. Moreover, a positive association was reported between authors' research performance and centrality and structural hole measures in t3 as opposed to ego-density, constraint and tie strength in t1. The findings can be used by policy makers to improve collaboration and develop research programs that can enhance several scientific fields. Central authors identified in the networks are better positioned to receive government funding, maximize research outputs and improve research community reputation. Viewed from a network's perspective, scientists can understand how collaborative relationships influence research performance and consider where to invest their decision and choices.

Dataset Information

Enabling Transdisciplinary Collaboration: Stakeholder Views on Working With "Children With Mentally Ill Parents" Research Groups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets