Josefien J F Breedvelt1,2, Victoria Zamperoni1, Emily South3, Eleonora P Uphoff4, Simon Gilbody5, Claudi L H Bockting6, Rachel Churchill4, Antonis A Kousoulis1. 1. Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. 4. Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. 5. Mental Health and Addictions Research Group, University of York, York, UK. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consistent and appropriate measurement is needed in order to improve understanding and evaluation of preventative interventions. This review aims to identify individual-level measurement tools used to evaluate mental health prevention interventions to inform harmonization of outcome measurement in this area. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and OpenGrey for studies published between 2008 and 2018 that aimed to evaluate prevention interventions for common mental health problems in adults and used at least one measurement scale (PROSPERO CRD42018095519). For each study, mental health measurement tools were identified and reviewed for reliability, validity, ease-of-use and cultural sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 127 studies were identified that used 65 mental health measurement tools. Most were used by a single study (57%, N = 37) and measured depression (N = 20) or overall mental health (N = 18). The most commonly used questionnaire (15%) was the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. A further 125 tools were identified which measured non-mental health-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was little agreement in measurement tools used across mental health prevention studies, which may hinder comparison across studies. Future research on measurement properties and acceptability of measurements in applied and scientific settings could be explored. Further work on supporting researchers to decide on appropriate outcome measurement for prevention would be beneficial for the field.
BACKGROUND: Consistent and appropriate measurement is needed in order to improve understanding and evaluation of preventative interventions. This review aims to identify individual-level measurement tools used to evaluate mental health prevention interventions to inform harmonization of outcome measurement in this area. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and OpenGrey for studies published between 2008 and 2018 that aimed to evaluate prevention interventions for common mental health problems in adults and used at least one measurement scale (PROSPERO CRD42018095519). For each study, mental health measurement tools were identified and reviewed for reliability, validity, ease-of-use and cultural sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 127 studies were identified that used 65 mental health measurement tools. Most were used by a single study (57%, N = 37) and measured depression (N = 20) or overall mental health (N = 18). The most commonly used questionnaire (15%) was the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. A further 125 tools were identified which measured non-mental health-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was little agreement in measurement tools used across mental health prevention studies, which may hinder comparison across studies. Future research on measurement properties and acceptability of measurements in applied and scientific settings could be explored. Further work on supporting researchers to decide on appropriate outcome measurement for prevention would be beneficial for the field.
Authors: Stephanie Grace Prost; Cynthia Golembeski; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; Jalayne Arias; Andrea K Knittel; Jessica Ballin; Heather D Oliver; Nguyen-Toan Tran Journal: Int J Prison Health Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Jonah E Trevino; Muntazar Monsur; Carol S Lindquist; Catherine R Simpson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.614