The growing emphasis on using empirical data to guide mental health policy decision making has contributed, in part, to a developing dichotomy along the continuum of research on mental health interventions.
At one end of the continuum is research on the efficacy of mental health interventions, traditionally referred to as clinical trials research.
The goal of clinical trials research is to determine whether or not a specific intervention can be shown to be efficacious for a specific problem.
At the other end of the continuum is research on the implementation and evaluation of mental health interventions, traditionally referred to as mental health services research.
The goals of mental health services research are to understand the access to, organization and financing of, and outcomes of mental health interventions.
The conceptual, methodological, and measurement features of both types of research are presented and suggestions are offered to bridge the gap between the two paradigms.
The purpose of this article is to highlight each discipline's unique contributions to mental health research and, in so doing, facilitate a discussion that fosters scientific integration and collaboration between clinical trials and mental health services investigators.
Mots-clés Pascal : Santé mentale, Politique sanitaire, Recherche appliquée, Prise décision, Paradigme, Evaluation, Efficacité traitement, Etude comparative, Analyse institutionnelle, Environnement social, Etats Unis, Amérique du Nord, Amérique, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Mental health, Health policy, Applied research, Decision making, Paradigm, Evaluation, Treatment efficiency, Comparative study, Institutional analysis, Social environment, United States, North America, America, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 99-0487692
Code Inist : 002B18H08. Création : 22/03/2000.