Suchergebnisse

Service user involvement in mental health research is on the international political agenda, for example mirrored by an emphasis on user involvement in funding of research. The idea is that service users contribute with their lived experiences of mental distress to the research process and thereby heighten the quality and relevance of the research. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and evaluate empirical research of how mental health service users actually partake in collaborative research processes and to summarize this research in dialogue with mental health user-researchers. The review included 32 studies. Main findings indicated that actual involvement of service user-researchers in research processes encompassed a complex set of precarious negotiation practices, where academics and service user-researchers were positioned and positioned themselves in alternative ways. The review accounts for how mental health service users were involved in collaborative research processes. The extracted themes concerned: (i) Expectations of research processes, (ii) Contribution to research processes, and (iii) Training and learning from research processes. The study reveals that collaborative research in mental health requires changes to traditional research practices to create and support genuine collaborative partnerships and thereby avoid tokenism and power inequalities.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of people with mental-health problems are diverse across countries. International studies comparing satisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the national mental-health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in 11 countries: Ireland, Iceland, England and Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and India. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental Health Legislation Attitudes Scale (MHLAS). This brief nine-item questionnaire was distributed via email to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental-health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert scale. Data were analysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS 'approval' score computed as a sum of the nine questions. We found that respondents in England and Wales and Denmark expressed the highest approval for their national legislation (76% and 74%, respectively), with those in India and Ireland expressing the lowest approval (65% and 64%, respectively). Almost all countries had a more positive attitude in comparison to Ireland on the admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people are transferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variations across Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the national mental-health law framework operates in each country.