Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec 28;19(1):291.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010291.

Virtual World Café Method for Identifying Mental Health Research Priorities: Methodological Case Study

Michelle Banfield  1 , Amelia Gulliver  1 , Alyssa R Morse  1
Affiliations

Virtual World Café Method for Identifying Mental Health Research Priorities: Methodological Case Study

Michelle Banfield et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

People with lived experience of mental health problems as both consumers and carers can bring significant expertise to the research process. However, the methods used to gather this information and their subsequent results can vary markedly. This paper describes the methods for two virtual World Cafés held to gather data on consumer and carer priorities for mental health research. Several methodological processes and challenges arose during data collection, including the achieved recruitment for each group (n = 4, n = 7) falling significantly short of the target number of 20 participants per group. This led to departures from planned methods (i.e., the use of a single 'room', rather than multiple breakout rooms). Despite this, the participants in the virtual World Cafés were able to generate over 200 ideas for research priorities, but not identify agreed-upon priorities. Virtual World Cafés can quickly generate a significant volume of data; however, they may not be as effective at generating consensus.

Keywords: internet; mental health; methods; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

    1. Banfield M.A., Barney L.J., Griffiths K.M., Christensen H.M. Australian mental health consumers’ priorities for research: Qualitative findings from the SCOPE for Research project. Health Expect. 2014;17:365–375. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00763.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caldon L.J.M., Marshall-Cork H., Speed G., Reed M.W.R., Collins K. Consumers as researchers—Innovative experiences in UK National Health Service Research. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010;34:547–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00907.x. - DOI
    1. Robotham D., Wykes T., Rose D., Doughty L., Strange S., Neale J., Hotopf M. Service user and carer priorities in a Biomedical Research Centre for mental health. J. Ment. Health. 2016;25:185–188. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2016.1167862. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hancock N., Bundy A., Tamsett S., McMahon M. Participation of mental health consumers in research: Training addressed and reliability assessed. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2012;59:218–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2012.01011.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Banfield M.A., Morse A.R., Gulliver A., Griffiths K.M. Mental health research priorities in Australia: A consumer and carer agenda. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2018;16:119. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0395-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types