Open AccessDo different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four‐arm Delphi study
Author(s) -
Owens Christabel,
Ley Ann,
Aitken Peter
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00492.x
Subject(s) - stakeholder , mental health , delphi method , stakeholder engagement , construct (python library) , psychology , public relations , nursing , promotion (chess) , medical education , applied psychology , medicine , political science , psychiatry , computer science , statistics , mathematics , politics , law , programming language
Background Despite considerable investment in research priority setting within diverse fields of healthcare, little is known about the extent to which different stakeholder groups share research priorities. Conflicting priorities may jeopardize stakeholder engagement in research. Objective To identify the research priorities of different stakeholder groups within mental health care and examine the extent and nature of agreement between them. Design Using a Delphi technique, we conducted parallel consultation processes within four different stakeholder groups. Each group process consisted of three rounds. Setting and participants The study was carried out within a mental health and learning disabilities trust in southern England. Participants were recruited from the following groups: mental health service users (34), informal carers (26), mental health practitioners (35) and service managers (23). Findings There were striking differences between the four groups in respect of their ability and willingness to make priority decisions. These differences notwithstanding, there was considerable overlap in respect of their research interests. All groups identified and attached high importance to issues relating to the promotion of independence, self‐esteem and recovery. The quality of in‐patient care, the place of psychological therapies and the relationship between physical and mental health also emerged across the board. Conclusions The confluence of four different stakeholder groups around a number of clear themes is highly encouraging, providing a framework within which to construct a research agenda and suggesting that mental health research can be built on solid partnerships.