Dataset Information

Consensus development of priority outcome domains for community mental health cares by multiple stakeholders: Protocol for an online Delphi study in Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Treatment goals for mental illness have expanded from hospital discharge and improved functioning to employment, living alone, and personal realization. These changes in treatment goals have also influenced mental health research. Recent studies have addressed the development of core outcome sets focusing on clinical aspects of mental illness such as depression and anxiety. However, a well-developed framework of essential outcomes for people with mental illness (service users) who live in the community is lacking. In addition, recent worldwide trends suggest more patient and public involvement and the importance of considering multiple stakeholders' views in the area of mental health research. Purpose of this study is to explore consensus on high-priority outcome domains among multiple stakeholders in community mental healthcare fields in Japan.

Methods

A three-step approach to developing an outcome list will be used. First, we developed a long list of outcomes for community mental health through a literature review, focus group interviews with key stakeholders, and online questionnaire surveys of service users and caregivers. Second, the long list was checked and revised in a pilot study. Third, the long list will be shortened to the outcome list through the Delphi methodology with participation from multiple stakeholders.

Discussion

Identifying important common outcome domains through collaboration with multiple stakeholders appears to contribute to the development of evidence for community mental health research in Japan. In addition, the study process itself may help promote patient and public involvement in education, practice, and research in the field of community mental health.

SUBMITTER: Shiozawa T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8698667 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.MethodsOur RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.ResultsIn total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

Project description:ObjectivesOpen organisational culture in hospitals is important, yet it remains unclear what it entails other than its referral to 'open communication' in the context of patient safety. This study aims to identify the elements of an open hospital culture.MethodsIn this group consensus study with a Delphi technique, statements were constructed based on the existing patient safety literature and input of 11 healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. A final framework consisting of 36 statements was reviewed on inclusion and exclusion, in multiple rounds by 32 experts and professionals working in healthcare. The feedback was analysed and shared with the panel after the group reached consensus on statements (>70% agreement).ResultsThe procedure resulted in 37 statements representing tangible (ie, leadership, organisational structures and processes, communication systems, employee attitudes, training and development, and patient orientation) and intangible themes (ie, psychological safety, open communication, cohesion, power, blame and shame, morals and ethics, and support and trust). The culture themes' teamwork and commitment were not specific for an open culture, contradicting the patient safety literature. Thereby, an open mind was shown to be a novel characteristic.ConclusionsOpen culture entails an open mind-set and attitude of professionals beyond the scope of patient safety in which there is mutual awareness of each other's (un)conscious biases, focus on team relationships and professional well-being and a transparent system with supervisors/leaders being role models and patients being involved. Although it is generally acknowledged that microlevel social processes necessary to enact patient safety deserve more attention, research has largely emphasised system-level structures and processes. This study provides practical enablers for addressing system and microlevel social processes to work towards an open culture in and across teams.