The appropriateness and use of focus group methodology across international mental health communities

Abstract

The ability to interpret collected data across international mental health communities often proves to be difficult. The following paper reports on the use and appropriateness of focus group methodology in helping to clarify issues that could help substantiate data collection and comparison across different cultures and regions. Field tests of the focus group methodology were undertaken in different regions and this paper describes an overview of the final field test in Sofia, Bulgaria. The findings and experiences with utilizing this methodology were incorporated in subsequent data collections.

Service user and caregiver involvement in mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review

“…Of these studies, only four (two quantitative [ 22 , 23 ] and two qualitative [ 24 , 25 ]) included outcomes that clearly assessed how service user or caregiver involvement impacted on service users and/or caregivers themselves (for example, in terms of number of hospitalisations, mental health status or coping capacities of service users, caregiver burden). Five studies (two quantitative [ 26 , 27 ], three qualitative [ 18 , 28 , 29 ]) contained study outcomes that were intended to be improved through service user participation (outcomes included, for instance, needle turnover rates, factors around the sustainability of mental health organisations, development of a scale, establishment of a mental health policy). For six of the studies, the primary outcomes related to satisfaction data or data on perceptions or attitudes (one quantitative [ 30 ] and four qualitative studies [ 15 , 20 , 27 , 31 ], plus one with both types of data [ 14 ]).…”

“… System, service user/caregiver and other: Qualitative: 1) benefits and 2) challenges of community participation In addition to contributing to scaling up mental health services, community participation can potentially promote development of culturally competent mental health services and greater community control of mental health. Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: Yes Criteria 7: No Schilder et al (2004) [ 29 ] Bulgaria (plus exploratory studies in India and Zambia) Field tests of focus group methodology in India and Zambia with final field test in Bulgaria. Consumers, family members, NGOs, professionals and government representatives (in Bulgaria: 15 service user, 6 carers, 5 mental health administrators, 11 medical students) Participation in focus groups Relatives seemed the most initially eager but dropped out the most.…”

Implementing the World Health Report 2001 recommendations for integrating mental health into primary health care: A situation analysis of three African countries: Ghana, South Africa and Uganda

“…In order to ensure that the data collected across country sites was consistent and conformed to uniform standards, the format and range of questions to be addressed was formulated in collaboration with each participating country to ensure content and face validity of each of the proposed instruments prior to data collection (Schilder et al, 2004) and adapted for country-specific issues by country partners. Key stakeholder groups included district managers, district hospital personnel, primary health care personnel, community level workers, traditional healers, private health care providers and service users.…”

Mediation and moderation effects of health system structure and process on the quality of mental health services in Ghana – structural equation modelling.

“…Additionally, within each of the psychiatric facilities, the nursing manager or supervisor introduced the researcher to consumers each morning at the outpatient and inpatient ward. This helped to gain the confidence of mental health nurses and psychiatrist who work directly with consumers and also ensured that the presence of the researcher was not unexpected or intrusive [26,28,29]. The participants provided a suitable date and time for the administration of the questionnaire.…”