Experiences and Priorities in Youth and Family Mental Health: Protocol for an Arts-Based Priority-Setting Focus Group Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, eHealth services enabled providers to reach families despite widespread social distancing restrictions. However, their rapid adoption often occurred without community partners' involvement and without an understanding of how they prioritize aspects of their mental health and associated service provision, both of which promote family and community-centered health care delivery. Establishing priorities in health care is essential for developing meaningful and reliable health services. As such, there is an urgent need to understand how eHealth service users, especially families who may have historically faced oppression and systemic barriers to service access, can best benefit from them. Arts-based approaches can elicit an understanding of priorities by providing an engaging and expressive means of moving beyond readily expressible discursive language and stimulating meaningful dialogue reflective of participants' lived experiences. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research is to determine the priorities and preferences of youth; parents or caregivers; newcomers and immigrants; and Indigenous community members regarding the use of eHealth in supporting their mental health using an innovative arts-based priority-setting method. METHODS: This study uses a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative, quantitative, and arts-based research. It follows a survey used to identify key knowledge partners who are interested in improving eHealth services for mental health support in Manitoba, Canada. Knowledge partners interested in group-based priority setting will be contacted to participate. We will facilitate approximately two focus groups across each subgroup of youth, parents or caregivers, newcomers or immigrants, and Indigenous community members using an integrative, quantitatively anchored arts-based method termed the "Circle of Importance" to understand participants' mental health priorities and how eHealth or technology may support their mental well-being. The Circle of Importance involves placing small objects, whose meaning is determined by participants, on a visual board with concentric circles that correspond to a 5-point Likert scale of importance. Following each focus group, we will evaluate participants' and focus group facilitators' experiences of the Circle of Importance using a survey and follow-up structured in-person interviews to garner how we can improve the arts-based approach used in the focus groups. RESULTS: The PRIME (Partnering for Research Innovation in Mental Health through eHealth Excellence) theme received institutional ethics approval on August 23, 2023. Data collection is projected for August 2023, with follow-up focus groups occurring in early 2024 as required. Data analysis will occur immediately following data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will directly inform a multiyear applied research agenda for PRIME aimed at improving mental health services through engaging key knowledge partners. The results may inform how arts-based methods in a priority setting can reflect aspects of experience beyond the capacities of qualitative or quantitative methods alone, and whether this approach aligns well with a positive experience of research participation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50208.
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 | 0,075 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,061 | 0,012 |
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 ».