35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Where there is no evidence: use of expert consensus methods to fill the evidence gap in low-income countries and cultural minorities

      research-article
      1 , , 2
      International Journal of Mental Health Systems
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In both developing countries and in relation to cultural minorities there have been calls to scale up mental health services and for evidence-informed policy and practice.

          Evidence based medicine

          The evidence based medicine movement has had a major influence in improving practice. However, implementation of this approach has some major difficulties. One that has been neglected is the situation where there is no relevant evidence. This situation is more likely to occur for healthcare decisions in developing countries or for cultural minorities within developed countries, because resources do not exist for expensive research studies.

          Consensus methods

          Consensus methods, such as the Delphi process, can be useful in providing an evidence base in situations where there is insufficient evidence. They provide a way of systematically tapping the expertise of people working in the area and give evidence that is readily applicable for a particular country and culture. Although consensus methods are often thought of as low in the hierarchy of evidence, consensus is central to the scientific process. We present four examples where the Delphi method was used to assess expert consensus in situations where no other evidence existed: estimating the prevalence of dementia in developing countries, developing mental health first aid guidelines in Asian countries, mental health first aid guidelines for Australian Aboriginal people, and modification of the concept of 'recovery' for Australian immigrant communities.

          Conclusion

          Consensus methods can provide a basis for decision-making and considered action when there is no evidence or when there are doubts about the applicability of evidence that has been generated from other populations or health system settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mental health systems in countries: where are we now?

          More than 85% of the world's population lives in 153 low-income and middle-income countries (LAMICs). Although country-level information on mental health systems has recently become available, it still has substantial gaps and inconsistencies. Most of these countries allocate very scarce financial resources and have grossly inadequate manpower and infrastructure for mental health. Many LAMICs also lack mental health policy and legislation to direct their mental health programmes and services, which is of particular concern in Africa and South East Asia. Different components of mental health systems seem to vary greatly, even in the same-income categories, with some countries having developed their mental health system despite their low-income levels. These examples need careful scrutiny to derive useful lessons. Furthermore, mental health resources in countries seem to be related as much to measures of general health as to economic and developmental indicators, arguing for improved prioritisation for mental health even in low-resource settings. Increased emphasis on mental health, improved resources, and enhanced monitoring of the situation in countries is called for to advance global mental health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence?

            L Green (2008)
            The usual search for explanations and solutions for the research-practice gap tends to analyze ways to communicate evidence-based practice guidelines to practitioners more efficiently and effectively from the end of a scientific pipeline. This examination of the pipeline looks upstream for ways in which the research itself is rendered increasingly irrelevant to the circumstances of practice by the process of vetting the research before it can qualify for inclusion in systematic reviews and the practice guidelines derived from them. It suggests a 'fallacy of the pipeline' implicit in one-way conceptualizations of translation, dissemination and delivery of research to practitioners. Secondly, it identifies a 'fallacy of the empty vessel' implicit in the assumptions underlying common characterizations of the practitioner as a recipient of evidence-based guidelines. Remedies are proposed that put emphasis on participatory approaches and more practice-based production of the research and more attention to external validity in the peer review, funding, publication and systematic reviews of research in producing evidence-based guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

              This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Ment Health Syst
                International Journal of Mental Health Systems
                BioMed Central
                1752-4458
                2010
                21 December 2010
                : 4
                : 33
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for International Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
                [2 ]Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Locked Bag 10, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
                Article
                1752-4458-4-33
                10.1186/1752-4458-4-33
                3016371
                21176157
                8add47f9-c12a-484e-8042-ab93a2c342b7
                Copyright ©2010 Minas and Jorm; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 August 2010
                : 21 December 2010
                Categories
                Debate

                Neurology
                Neurology

                Comments

                Comment on this article