PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1200174

Differing perspectives on mental health evaluation.

G Spivack·C H St Clair·J Siegel·J J Platt
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Small-group workshops of nonevaluators with differing interests in mental health discussed evaluation priorities for community mental health centers. Participants included center professionals, concerned citizens, and funders. A majority of the participants placed high value on accountability from a consumer standpoint and relatively low value on center management issues and cost or equity of service delivery. Center staff were more interested in efficiency and effectiveness, while outsiders with vested interests were more concerned with community involvement. The authors summarize seven role perspectives and discuss their implications for the establishment of evaluation priorities within a center.

Explore related subjects

Attitude to HealthCommunity Mental Health ServicesDelivery of Health CareEvaluation Studies as TopicOrganization and AdministrationPatient AdvocacyPennsylvaniaJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Spivack, C H St Clair, J Siegel, J J Platt. 1975. Differing perspectives on mental health evaluation.. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.132.12.1295

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗