论文部分内容阅读
目的:对1990—2019年研究精神卫生政策的全球学术论文进行系统综述，分析该领域研究方法的总体特征，了解精神卫生政策研究方法的发展历史与现况，以期为我国精神卫生政策研究提供参考资料。方法:通过检索Web of Science核心合集和the Cochrane Library等数据库，制定入组标准并进行文献筛选，采用两级编码方式对入组的文献进行分类和分析。结果:共纳入1 066篇文献。近30年间，精神卫生政策研究文献的数量总体呈上升趋势。以每5年为一阶段划分后，定性研究类型的文献数量在每个阶段均最多（66.1%~92.4%）；其中，专家意见型的定性研究在1990—2014年一直占多数（43.3%~84.8%）；定量研究和结构性定性研究的文献分别从1990—1994年的7.6%和8.6%快速增长至2015—2019年的22.6%和34.7%。在定量研究文献中，数据来源主要为调查数据和二手数据；定量研究设计类型以纵向研究（41.6%，119篇）和横断面研究（39.5%，113篇）为主，其余依次为随机对照试验（5.6%，16篇）、队列研究（4.5%，13篇）、准实验研究（3.8%，11篇）、系统综述（3.5%，10篇）、生态研究（1.0%，3篇）。定性分析方法包括文献回顾和系统综述、理论视角/框架分析（以WHO框架、Kingdon多源流框架、Walt & Gilson政策分析框架和Bronfenbrenner生态模式为主）和定性数据分析方法（以文本内容分析和个案研究为主）。结论:定性研究一直是精神卫生政策研究的主要类型，定性研究的资料分析方法不断丰富；话语分析、民族志、现象学方法等可能成为精神卫生政策定性研究的新手段；在定量类型的精神卫生政策研究中，早期以横断面研究和纵向研究为主，近十年间、随机对照试验、准实验研究、生态研究等多种方法均已得到应用；计量经济学方法是今后该领域定量分析方法可拓展的新方向。“,”Objective:A systematic review of global academic studies on mental health policy from 1990 to 2019 analyzed the overall characteristics of research methods in this field, in order to understand the development history and current status of mental health policy research methods, and hope to provide a reference to serve for the mental health policy study in our country.Methods:By searching the Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, literature was screened, classified and statistically analyzed by using a two-level coding.Results:1 066 articles were included for analysis. In the past 30 years, the number of literature on mental health policy research was showing an upward trend. Since 1990, literature of qualitative research was dominant in each five-year stage, and the proportion ranged from 66.1% to 92.4%. Expert opinion of qualitative research was in the leading position from 1990 to 2014, and the proportion ranged from 43.3% to 84.8%. The proportion of quantitative research increased rapidly from 7.6% in 1990-1994 to 22.6% in 2015-2019 while structural qualitative research increased from 8.6% to 34.7%. In the quantitative research, the data sources mainly included survey data and second-hand data; the designs of quantitative research were mainly longitudinal research (41.6%,n n=119) and cross-sectional research (39.5%, n n=113). There were also few randomized controlled trials (5.6%, n n=16), cohort study (4.5%, n n=13), quasi-experimental study (3.8%, n n=11), systematic review (3.5%, n n=10) and ecological study (1.0%, n n=3). The qualitative analysis methods included literature review and systematic review, theoretical perspective/framework analysis (mainly WHO framework, Kingdon multi-source flow framework, Walt and Gilson policy analysis framework and Bronfenbrenner′s ecological model) and qualitative data analysis (mainly document content analysis and case study).n Conclusions:Qualitative research has always been the main type of mental health policy research, and the data analysis methods for qualitative research have been constantly enriched; discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenological method, etc. may become a new section of qualitative research on mental health policy. In the quantitative type of mental health policy research, cross-sectional and longitudinal research were the main methods in the early stage, and many methods have been applied in recent ten years such as randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental study, ecological study; econometric method is a new direction in which quantitative analysis methods in this field can be expanded in the future.