Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorZitko, Pedro 
Authordc.contributor.authorBorghero, Francesca 
Authordc.contributor.authorZavala, Cynthia 
Authordc.contributor.authorMarkkula, Niina 
Authordc.contributor.authorSantelices, Emilio 
Authordc.contributor.authorLibuy Hidalgo, Nicolás 
Authordc.contributor.authorPemjean, Alfredo 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T19:51:17Z
Available datedc.date.available2018-06-29T19:51:17Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2017
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationInt J Ment Health Syst, (2017) 11: 61es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/149371
Abstractdc.description.abstractBackground: Scientific knowledge is a fundamental tool for making informed health policy decisions, but the link between health research and public policy decision-making is often missing. This study aims to identify and prioritize a national set of research gaps in mental health. Methods: A multi-approach method to identify gaps in knowledge was developed, including (1) document analysis and identification of possible research questions, (2) interviews to Ministry of Health key informants, (3) focus groups with different stakeholders, and (4) a web consultation addressed to academics. The identified gaps were translated to a standardized format of research questions. Criteria for prioritization were extracted from interviews and focus groups. Then, a team of various professionals applied them for scoring each question research. Findings: Fifty-four people participated in the knowledge gaps identification process through an online consultation (n = 23) and focus groups (n = 18). Prioritization criteria identified were: extent of the knowledge gap, size of the objective population, potential benefit, vulnerability, urgency and applicability. 155 research questions were prioritized, of which 44% were related to evaluation of systems and/ or health programs, and 26% to evaluation of interventions, including questions related to cost-effectiveness. 30% of the research questions came from the online consultation, and 36% from key informants. Users groups contributed with 10% of total research questions. Conclusion: A final priority setting for mental health research was reached, making available for authorities and research agencies a list of 155 research questions ordered by relevance. The experience documented here could serve to other countries interested in developing a similar process.es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherBIOMED Central Ltd.es_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Sourcedc.sourceInternational Journal of Mental Health Systemses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectMental healthes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectPriority settinges_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectPublic health policieses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectMental health researches_ES
Títulodc.titlePriority setting for mental health research in Chilees_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadortjnes_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación ISIes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile