↓ Skip to main content

Priority setting in research: user led mental health research

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Priority setting in research: user led mental health research
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0054-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjorie Ghisoni, Christine Ann Wilson, Karen Morgan, Bethan Edwards, Natalie Simon, Emma Langley, Helen Rees, Amanda Wells, Philip John Tyson, Phil Thomas, Allen Meudell, Frank Kitt, Brian Mitchell, Alan Bowen, Jason Celia

Abstract

Involving people in health research is increasingly recognised as being important to make sure that research is focused more on the needs of people who use health services. At present, ideas about what should be researched most often comes from researchers and/or health professionals like doctors and nurses rather than people with a lived experience of mental illness. In this study, we will talk with this group of people from across Wales to explore what they think research into their health services should focus on. The findings from this work will help to influence the work of the National Centre for Mental Health Research Partnership Group; as well as` researchers and health professionals and others who concentrate on mental health research. The Research group is a partnership between people with a lived experience of mental ill health and professionals with an interest in mental ill health. The group plan to take forward the ideas that came from this research and some of the ideas have already been used to increase funding in the area of mental health research. Background This paper is the result of continued collaboration between members of the Service User and Carer Research Partnership, based in Wales and supported by the National Centre for Mental Health, Health and Care Research Wales, and Hafal. The aim of this study was to explore the research priorities of people with experience of mental health services which include people with a lived experience of mental ill health, their carers, and professionals. Method A nominal group technique was used to gather data. A one-day workshop 'Getting Involved in Research: Priority Setting' was held to gather the ideas and suggestions for research priorities from people who have experience of mental health services. Results Twenty-five participants attended the workshop. 5 were mental health professionals, 20 had a lived experience of mental ill health, (of which 3 were also carers). 11 were male and 14 were female. 120 research ideas were generated across 6 'Ideas Generating Workstations'. Participants took part in a 3 stage vote to narrow down the ideas to 2 main research priorities. Conclusion The two main research priority areas that were identified:'Developing the knowledge of mental health issues amongst school-aged children' as a vehicle to overcome stigma and discrimination, and to support young people to manage their own mental health.'Developing education as a tool for recovery', for example by peer support. In addition, participants engaged in a notable discussion over the research priority: 'How are carers supported during the recovery of the person for whom they care?'

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Psychology 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,714,216
of 25,046,944 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#154
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,999
of 430,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,944 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.