Search results

An intellectual disability (ID) mental health core competency framework was developed to articulate the essential attributes the mainstream mental health workforce requires to meet the needs of people with ID. This study aims to evaluate the framework’s impact.

Mental health clinicians, managers, supervisors and educators completed an online survey at download and 3- and 12-months post-download to evaluate the implementation, utility and impact of the framework.

The majority of respondents at 3-months (62.9%) and 12-months post-download (59.1%) said the core competencies covered important aspects of their role. At 3-months 47.8% of clinicians were working towards developing the core competencies. Respondents rated their confidence working with people with ID significantly higher at 12-months post-download compared to pre-download (EMM pre = 3.51 vs 12 m = 4.21, p < 0. 001).

The framework was well-received and can be used to underpin education, training and recruitment in ID mental health. The evaluation can also inform the development of similar frameworks.

This is the first evaluation, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, of a core competency framework specifically designed for public mental health professionals from different professional backgrounds working with people with ID.

Clinician engagement in research has positive impacts for healthcare, but is often difficult for healthcare organisations to support in light of limited resources. This scoping review aimed to describe the literature on health service-administered strategies for increasing research engagement by medical practitioners.

Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 and two independent reviewers screened each record for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were that studies sampled medically qualified clinicians; reported empirical data; investigated effectiveness of an intervention in improving research engagement and addressed interventions implemented by an individual health service/hospital.

Of the 11,084 unique records, 257 studies were included. Most (78.2%) studies were conducted in the USA, and were targeted at residents (63.0%). Outcomes were measured in a variety of ways, most commonly publication-related outcomes (77.4%), though many studies used more than one outcome measure (70.4%). Pre-post (38.8%) and post-only (28.7%) study designs were the most common, while those using a contemporaneous control group were uncommon (11.5%). The most commonly reported interventions included Resident Research Programs (RRPs), protected time, mentorship and education programs. Many articles did not report key information needed for data extraction (e.g. sample size).

This scoping review demonstrated that, despite a large volume of research, issues like poor reporting, infrequent use of robust study designs and heterogeneous outcome measures limited application. The most compelling available evidence pointed to RRPs, protected time and mentorship as effective interventions. Further high-quality evidence is needed to guide healthcare organisations on increasing medical research engagement.

Health misinformation poses severe risks to people’s health decisions and outcomes. A great deal of research in this area has focused on debunking misinformation and found limited effects of correctives after misinformation exposure. The research on prebunking strategies has been inadequate. Most has focused on forewarning and enhancing literacy skills and knowledge to recognize misinformation. Part of the reason for the inadequacy could be due to the challenges in conceptualizing and measuring knowledge. This study intends to fill this gap and examines various types of knowledge, including subjective knowledge, cancer literacy, persuasion knowledge and media literacy. This study aims to understand how knowledge may moderate the effect of misinformation exposure on misbeliefs.

An online experiment with a basic experimental design (misinformation exposure: health misinformation vs factual health message) was conducted. The authors measured and tested the moderating role of different types of knowledge (subjective knowledge, cancer literacy, persuasion knowledge and media literacy) separately to improve the understanding of their role in combatting online health misinformation.

This study found that a higher level of cancer literacy and persuasion knowledge helped people identify misinformation and prevented them from being persuaded by it. A higher level of subjective knowledge, however, reduced the recognition of misinformation, thereby increasing the likelihood of being persuaded by it. Media literacy did not moderate the mediation path.

This study differentiates the role different types of knowledge may have played in moderating the influence of health misinformation. It contributes to a strategic development of interventions that better prepare people against the influence of health misinformation.