A systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions.


Journal

European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 06 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 3 4 2020
medline: 25 6 2021
entrez: 3 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32236548
pii: 5814883
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz233
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

539-545

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Josefien J F Breedvelt (JJF)

Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK.
Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Victoria Zamperoni (V)

Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK.

Emily South (E)

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Eleonora P Uphoff (EP)

Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Simon Gilbody (S)

Mental Health and Addictions Research Group, University of York, York, UK.

Claudi L H Bockting (CLH)

Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Rachel Churchill (R)

Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Antonis A Kousoulis (AA)

Research, Programmes and Policy, Mental Health Foundation, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH