Nigerian and Ghanaian Young People’s Experiences of Care for Common Mental Disorders in Inner London: Protocol for a Multimethod Investigation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Care Quality Commission published a review in 2018 in England titled "Are We Listening," which revealed that child and adolescent mental health services are not responsive to the specific needs of young Black people and other ethnic minorities even in areas with ethnically diverse populations. It found that commissioners and service planners failed to engage with these young people and their families to understand their needs and expectations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to engage Nigerian and Ghanaian young people (NAGYP) with experiences of care for common mental disorders (CMDs) in London, to increase understanding of their needs, and to give voice to their views and preferences. Their parents', caregivers', and practitioners' views will also be sought for service improvement. METHODS: Three combined contemporary complementary methodologies-thematic analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), and intersectionality-based policy analysis (IBPA)-will be used across 3 comprehensive phases. First, a scoping review where relevant themes will be critically analyzed will inform further phases of this study. Detailed mapping of community and mental health care services in 13 inner London boroughs to investigate what professionals actually do rather than what they say they do. Second, IBPA will be used to scrutinize improving access to psychological therapies and other legislations and policies relevant to NAGYP to undertake an intersectional multileveled analysis of power, models, and constraints. Third, IPA will "give voice" and "make sense" of NAGYP lived experiences of CMDs via a representative sample of NAGYP participants' (n=30) aged 16-25 years, parents or caregivers' (n=20), and practitioners' (n=20) perspectives will be captured. RESULTS: The study has been approved by the UCL Institute of Education Research Ethics Committee (Z6364106/2022/02/28; health research) and University College London (Z6364106/2022/10/24; social research). Recruitment has begun in 13 inner boroughs of London. Data collection through observation, semistructured interviews, and focus groups are expected to be finalized by early 2024, and the study will be published by early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Combining multiple qualitative methodologies and methods will enable rigorous investigation into NAGYP's lived experiences of care received for CMDs in London. Findings from this study should enable a reduction in the negative connotations and harmful superstitions associated with mental health-related issues in this group, inform evidence-based interventions, and facilitate preventive or early access to interventions. There may also be an indirect impact on problems resulting from mental illness such as school dropout, antisocial behaviors, knife crimes, juvenile detention centers, and even death. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/42575.
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 | 0,102 | 0,082 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,106 | 0,016 |
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 ».