Book Review: Mental Health Research, Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research: Mental Health Research from Theory to Practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research: Mental Health from Theory to Practice Mike Slade and Stefan Priebe, editors. New York (NY): Routledge, 2006. 298 p. US$53.95. Reviewer rating: Very good Review by David L Streiner, PhD, C Psych Toronto, Ontario It is unusual for a book's title to understate its scope and to potentially limit its intended audience. However, Choosing Methods in Mental Health does not do justice to the contents of this book. Of the 21 chapters, only 7 are devoted to research methods. The uniqueness of the book is found in the 9 chapters in the second section, called Consumers of Research, and the final 4 chapters in the Generating High-Impact Research section. The first chapter of the first section, written by the editors, sets the stage for the rest of the book; Who Is For? makes the case that the traditional model of researchers writing scholarly articles to be read only by other researchers, can (and often does) lead to misinterpretation of the findings by the public and by policy-makers. It argues that researchers need to come to grips with the fact that experts are no longer the sole purveyors of research findings (if they ever were) and that the rise of consumerism has led people to rely on other sources of information, which may be fallacious. They use the example of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; despite very strong evidence, based on more than 2 million children, that there is no link between MMR and autism a case-series of 12 children claiming such a link was sufficient to result in widespread opposition to vaccination by parents. The next 7 chapters cover a variety of research methods used in mental health research, moving from the studies of individuals to populations: single-case experimental designs, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, grounded theory, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and metaanalysis, and surveys. Each chapter follows a common format: a brief description of the method, assumptions and theoretical framework, strengths and limitations of the method, the types of questions that can be answered with the technique, a brief example, and finally how the method can be used in future mental health research. Although each of the authors is an expert in their field, the chapters are balanced and fair, and avoid the implication that the method being described is the only road to truth. The second section addresses the issue of how research can influence consumers of research. As with the first section, it begins with the individual (primary care physicians), and moves on to community mental health teams, the public perception of mental illness, the media, and finally governmental policy. These chapters also follow a common format: the types of evidence that have salience, an example of a study that was successful in changing practice or policy, as well as what does not work with an example. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,065 | 0,053 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».