Search

Mental health stigma by health care practitioners is well established with few education interventions implemented in Australia. Depth of field is a growing body of health humanities research that draws on healthcare consumers as legitimate experts (by experience) to co-design health professions education. This research aimed to explore whether a co-designed (with mental health consumers) education intervention shifts knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions of current and future health care practitioners towards caring for people who have experienced mental health issues. A convergent parallel mixed method design was used to collect data utilising a validated anti-stigma assessment tool at two time points pre- and post-intervention (n = 80) followed by qualitative data from semi-structured interviews (n = 10). Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Sign-Rank test to compare pre-post responses and interview data were thematically analysed. Collectively, data showed positive shifts in knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions towards people who have experienced mental health issues. Three main themes: Making connections: The power of storytelling; Knowledge and attitudes towards Borderline Personality Disorder: Shape, strengthen, challenge; and Inspiring change in health care practice. Co-designed education can positively impact health care practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions and has the potential to reframe mental health education toward recovery-oriented practice.

Objectives Simulated patients are increasingly used to measure outcomes in health services but reporting is suboptimal. This study aims to create a checklist for the reporting of simulated patient (SP) methodology. Methods This was a Delphi study. The authors of health service research studies using SP methodology were invited to participate. Round 1 questionnaire assessed the applicability of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) reporting checklist for SP methodology and asked for rewording of/additional items. Responses were thematically analysed to generate Round 2 items in which participants rated each item for importance (seven-point Likert scale) and median, mode and IQR were calculated. In Round 3, participants were invited to rescore their Round 2 responses. Consensus was defined as an IQR ≤ 1 (Extremely important) and median ≤ 2 (Very important). All consensus items were considered for inclusion in the checklist. Similarly, worded items were rationalised and items not specific to SP methodology or other existing checklists were excluded. Key findings Twenty-nine authors participated in Round 1 and a further seven for Rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-six responses were analysed for Round 1, 30 for Round 2 and 28 for Round 3. There was consensus on 29 of 54 items in Round 2 and 45 of 63 items in Round 3. The final checklist comprised 28 items. Conclusions A new reporting checklist to guide the reporting of studies, using simulated patients, complementary to CONSORT or STROBE, has been developed and will now be tested for usability.