Abstract
© The Author(s) 2021.Purpose: Public health campaigns are still relatively rare in mental health. This paper aims to find consensus on the preventive self-management actions (i.e. “healthy behaviors”) for common mental health problems (e.g. depression and anxiety) that should be recommended in mental health campaigns directed at the general public. Approach: A 3-round Delphi study Participants: 23 international experts in mental health and 1447 members of the public, most of whom had lived experience of mental health problems. Method: The modified Delphi study combined quantitative and qualitative data collection: 1) online qualitative survey data collection thematically analyzed, 2) recommendations rated for consensus, 3) consensus items rated by public panel on a Likert scale. Results: Expert consensus was reached on 15 behaviors that individuals can engage in to sustain mental health. Eight were rated as appropriate by more than half (50%) of the public panel, including: avoiding illicit drugs (80%, n = 1154), reducing debt (72%, n = 1043), improving sleep (69%, n = 1000), regulating mood (65%, n = 941), having things to look forward to (60%, n = 869). Conclusions: A series of healthy behaviors for the promotion and protection of mental health received expert and public consensus. To our knowledge, this is the first study to offer a set of actions for public health messaging for the prevention of poor mental health. Future research should focus on evaluating effectiveness of these actions in a universal primary prevention context.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1114-1120 |
Journal | American Journal of Health Promotion |
Volume | 35 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2021 |
Funding
We thank V. Zamperoni for providing input and guidance on the analysis and interpretation of data and contributing to drafting of the manuscript. Ethical approval for the third round of the study, which involved the public panel, was obtained from Queen’s University Belfast Ethics Committee on 26th April 2018. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Queen's University Belfast |