MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4220871703 · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riac019.042

Developing mental health education: “It is a subject where most pharmacists [or pharmacy] students have no more knowledge than the general public”

2022· article· en· W4220871703 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannah Macfarlane, Judith Strawbridge, Hayley C. Gorton

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMental Health Treatment and Access
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPharmacyMental healthThematic analysisMedicineMedical educationPharmacy practiceQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careNursingQualitative researchPsychiatrySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction With one quarter of people in the UK reporting a mental health problem, pharmacists have a vital role in mental health care. We previously explored pharmacy students’ views on the value of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training in preparing them to provide mental health care. (1) Within the questionnaire, students were given opportunity to discuss their experiences of mental health teaching and learning. The large amount of rich data generated lent itself to separate qualitative analysis. Aim To understand the main themes in pharmacy students’ reflections on mental health and pharmacy. Methods An anonymous, online questionnaire was distributed in February 2020.The original aim was to establish the attitudes and experiences of pharmacy students (n=232) in the UK and Ireland in relation to Mental Health First Aid Training (MHFA). Students across all year groups in the MPharm were invited, and 70% of respondents were in year 3 or 4. Students from eighteen universities responded, of which 80% were female. (1) Participants were also asked open questions to enable explanation and further expansion on their answers both about MHFA and about mental health and pharmacy generally. Comments ranged from short phrases to full paragraphs. These data were analysed by two authors (HG and HM), following Thematic Analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2) and adopting an interpretivist approach. Authors read and re-read open comments to develop understanding of the main themes discussed when students reflected on MH teaching, their own learning and the anticipated value of this in professional practice. To ensure rigour, the authors initially undertook their analysis separately and then agreed on the themes which best described the data. A third author, JS, reviewed the coding, agreed the proposed themes and revised subthemes. Results The identified themes were i) Mental health is important; ii) Pharmacists’ role and iii) So, teach me. Overall, students identified that ‘mental health is extremely important and often overlooked’. Most identified that pharmacists have a central role in mental health support and that mental health ‘needs to have a more important place in pharmacy than it does at the moment’. Students highlighted ‘concern[s] about communicating with mental health patients’ and managing ‘difficult situations’. They wanted to learn more about mental health and wanted this embedded across curricula. There was a fourth, crosscutting theme: stigma. Participants acknowledged the existence of stigma but felt it was reducing. Data included examples of othering, referring to people with mental illness as ‘them’ not ‘us’. Conclusion This study is the most contemporary, pan-university study of mental health in MPharm curricula in recent times. The potential for bias, given participants elected to engage in a questionnaire about MHFA was something borne in mind during analysis. Pharmacy students identified mental health to be an important aspect of health, where stigma still exits. Students recognised their potential future contribution in mental healthcare. It requires focus in pharmacy degrees which could ultimately support increasing pharmacists’ involvement in mental health. References (1) Gorton, H.C., Macfarlane, H., Edwards, R. et al. UK and Ireland survey of MPharm student and staff experiences of mental health curricula, with a focus on Mental Health First Aid. J of Pharm Policy and Pract14, 73 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-021-00364-1 (2) Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide For Beginners. London: Sage; 2013.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,525
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,987

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,146
Tête enseignante GPT0,566
Écart entre enseignants0,420 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Pharmacy PracticeMême sujetMental Health Treatment and AccessTravaux en français237 207