Journal of affective disorders · 2016
Effective self-management strategies for bipolar disorder: A community-engaged Delphi Consensus Consultation study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Michalak Erin E, Suto Melinda J, Barnes Steven J, Hou Sharon, Lapsley Sara, Scott Mike W, Murray Greg, Austin Jehannine, Elliott Nusha Balram, Berk Lesley, Crest Bd
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Self-management represents an important complement to psychosocial treatments for bipolar disorder (BD), but research is limited. Specifically, little is known about self-management approaches for elevated mood states; this study investigated self-management strategies for: (1) maintaining balance in mood, and (2) stopping progression into hypomania/mania.
METHODS: To identify the common components of BD self-management, Delphi Consensus Consultation methods were combined with a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach across five study phases: (1) Qualitative dataset content analysis; (2) Academic/grey literature reviews; (3) Content analysis; (4) Two Delphi rounds (rating strategies on a 5-point Likert scale, Very Unhelpful-Very Helpful), and; (5) Quantitative analysis and interpretation. Participants were people with BD and healthcare providers.
RESULTS: Phases 1 and 2 identified 262 and 3940 candidate strategies, respectively; 3709 were discarded as duplicates/unintelligible. The remaining 493 were assessed via Delphi methods in Phase 4: 101 people with BD and 52 healthcare providers participated in Round 1; 83 of the BD panel (82%) and 43 of the healthcare provider panel (83%) participated in Round 2-exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on Round 2 results.
LIMITATIONS: EFA was underpowered and sample was not ethnically diverse, limiting generalizability.
DISCUSSION: High concordance was observed in ratings of strategy effectiveness between the two panels. Future research could usefully investigate the provisional discovery here of underlying factors which link individual strategies. For example, 'maintaining hope' underpinned strategies for maintaining balance, and 'decreasing use of stimulants' underpinned strategies to interrupt hypo/manic ascent. There is merit in combining CBPR and Delphi methods.
METHODS: To identify the common components of BD self-management, Delphi Consensus Consultation methods were combined with a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach across five study phases: (1) Qualitative dataset content analysis; (2) Academic/grey literature reviews; (3) Content analysis; (4) Two Delphi rounds (rating strategies on a 5-point Likert scale, Very Unhelpful-Very Helpful), and; (5) Quantitative analysis and interpretation. Participants were people with BD and healthcare providers.
RESULTS: Phases 1 and 2 identified 262 and 3940 candidate strategies, respectively; 3709 were discarded as duplicates/unintelligible. The remaining 493 were assessed via Delphi methods in Phase 4: 101 people with BD and 52 healthcare providers participated in Round 1; 83 of the BD panel (82%) and 43 of the healthcare provider panel (83%) participated in Round 2-exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on Round 2 results.
LIMITATIONS: EFA was underpowered and sample was not ethnically diverse, limiting generalizability.
DISCUSSION: High concordance was observed in ratings of strategy effectiveness between the two panels. Future research could usefully investigate the provisional discovery here of underlying factors which link individual strategies. For example, 'maintaining hope' underpinned strategies for maintaining balance, and 'decreasing use of stimulants' underpinned strategies to interrupt hypo/manic ascent. There is merit in combining CBPR and Delphi methods.