Research priorities in mental health

Abstract

Setting research priorities becomes necessary when the demand for research funds outstrips the supply; because it is impossible to do everything some topics must be chosen as more promising and pertinent than others. This paper proposes a scheme for estimating the relative merits of different branches of research within the whole field of mental health. The scheme for assessing the claims of each area is based upon three factors: the need for research in a particular topic (using data about prevalence of disorders; the costs attributable to disorders; and the like); the possibilities of doing good science; the estimated time to a clinical payoff. It is argued that reasonable assessments of these three factors can be combined to give a relative weight to any particular research area. The judgements of relative weight can be progressively improved as more data becomes available. The argument is put that one way to obtain more funds for mental health research overall is to improve the ordering of the different areas within the field of mental health. Once mental health has its house in order it will be better equipped to make the case for mental health research.