The topic I have chosen to review is existing research on mental Illness studies. The first article selected is “Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Screening and Outreach Model Developed for a Peer Workforce.” In this study, there were twenty-four people participating in the screening for depression in mothers whose children had mental health problems. The sampling method used in this study was non-probability sampling or more specifically, purposive sampling. This was because for the study to be relevant, the subjects needed to be relatable to those seeking help as well as to those providing help.
As described in the article, there were three groups analyzed including: family peer advocates, their direct supervisors, and mothers seeking services at a family resource center. According to the article, from the three groups there were eleven family peer advocates, five supervisors and eight mothers who had been to a family resource center. This study only used residents from New York City and from those residents, groups were chosen from five different family resource centers. This study was cross-sectional which means the study does not happen over a long period of time.
The quantitative data was collected over several weeks in the form of appointments or sessions that study subjects attended. There were four steps to collect data with ways to measure and analyze what was collected that were detailed in the article as follows: “The intervention, entitled screening, education, and empowerment (SEE), consists of four topics administered in 4 weekly sessions; (1) screening mothers for depression using a standardized instrument, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), (2) providing education about depression and treatment, (3) facilitating active linkages to mental health services and reviewing what to anticipate at the caregiver’s first appointment, and, (4) empowering caregivers to become active participants in their mental health care.” Findings revealed the research question asked at the beginning was in fact correct and these mothers of children with mental health issues in the program were showing signs of depression and were willing to discuss their concerns with family resource center personnel. By encouraging intervention by peers in a non-clinical setting, researchers were able to analyze not only the state of the mother’s mental health but also the effectiveness of counseling in this type of setting.
When trying to identify signs of depression, the steps used were helpful and included screening, empowerment techniques as well as mental health counseling. The limitations of this study were small sample size, only those that passed the intervention could be used, there was a possibility of bias, a lack of generalizability, and the groups were too small for participants to be truly honest without fear of identification. This study used only participants who were actively seeking help for depression. It does not take into account those unable or unwilling to seek help at the family resource center. Mothers struggling to take care of children with mental health problems may not have the ability to recognize their own health issues or be willing to seek treatment. Additionally, the study used peer-to-peer counseling in an effort to promote healthy interaction and discussion. The non-clinical environment was evaluated as a suitable environment for identifying participants exhibiting depression symptoms.
The second article selected was the qualitative study, “There is a lot to it: Being a mother and living with a mental illness.” The sample size in total was nineteen people that split into eleven staff and eight mothers. The sampling method used in this study was snowball sampling which means groups were picked based on relevance to study as well as getting another group from the first group. Of the mothers involved, there were five that had schizophrenia, two with depressive disorder, one with bipolar disorder and three that had more than one mental disorder. The staff members consisted of six social workers, two psychiatric nurses, two medical officers and one parent peer leader.
This study took place in Melbourne, Australia in an adult public mental health service and the study was cross-sectional. The data was collected through interviews that recorded audio and according to the article lasted approximately an hour. The responses were analyzed consistent with constructivist grounded theory, which uses coding. After the study, the findings concluded mothers with mental illness want to do whatever they can for their children even if that means they are not the primary caretakers. Some of the mothers believed their children help them achieve normalcy in social settings as well as familial settings. However, since the mothers want to always be there for their children they do not look after themselves physically and mentally as well as they should. Having children motivates many mothers to find ways to provide for their children’s physical, emotional and financial wellness. However, this cannot be done if the mother’s mental illness dominates. Limitations of this study include lack of generalizability, a sample size only from a lower socioeconomic class, and lack of data from higher socioeconomic classes.
As with any type of study, there are both positives and negatives to conducting qualitative research, which I shall discuss. One of the positive implications is the ability to study subjects and situations in detail with no required direction that has been determined prior to the study. The researcher is allowed to explore ideas beyond the strict confines of a quantitative study. The impact of the researcher and other’s values on analysis and the collection of vast data for a small number of cases are also positive attributes of a qualitative study. More information can be obtained and the social situation can be addressed. The researcher gains more than straight statistical data that can sometimes be misleading. The weaknesses of a qualitative study are that the study findings do not have generalizability a lot of times and the researcher is considered an instrument rather than using instruments to properly measure variables. There can be a great deal of variability in the researcher, even if the same methodology is used because of researcher biases that can influence test subjects.
The other side of research, which is quantitative, has weaknesses and strengths as well. On the positive side, the quantitative study is comprised of focusing on quantifying social phenomena. The researcher designs instruments to measure particular variables and conclusions aimed toward drawing universal generalization drawn from data. The weaknesses of this type of study is that it consists of small amounts of data collected on many cases, the analyses and categories of data are determined in advance, and the goal is a measurement of specific variables. Although the data collected may measure a particular result, there could be underlying social implications that are not measured.
I feel that mental illness is a major concern for our society today. People who suffer from mental illness have endured not only the illness but also the social stigma of the diagnosis. We are finally starting to understand the role of mental illness and how we can help treat it. I believe it is important to research and treat those with mental illness, especially in light of the recent increase in crimes attributable to this type of disease. If I were to research mental illness and how it affects family life, I would use qualitative research versus quantitative. Qualitative focuses less on the numbers and more on the meaning behind actions. The qualitative study would be cross-sectional and use in-depth interviews as the research method. The interviews would have a set of questions used for all people and the time it would take would be a couple days to a couple weeks; the amount of time depending upon the sample size. The resources involved would be an audio recorder to take notes of the interviews upon consent, as well as computer data analysis to code the data to find similarities and information. Since I am researching mental illness and how it affects family life, I would use a family help center or mental help clinic for my population. The validity of the study would be based on the questions mentioned in the text which are: “how credible was the informant, were statements made in response to the researcher’s questions, or were they spontaneous, how does the presence or absence of the researcher or the researcher’s informant influence the actions and statements of other group members.” The ability to generalize the study would be difficult considering the study would be based on meaning and the social situation of the area rather than the overall population. That is why my study would not be very generalizable to the population because the data gathered does not have a broad spectrum of people. However, I would strive to create a research scenario that could be easily replicated so additional studies could be done to expand the research. My study would contribute to existing literature by shedding more light on the dynamic between mental illness and family life. Additionally, the study would show the data from a new perspective, location and mix of people.