On 22nd of September, the mental health data science community came together to share findings and best practice at MQ’s 2021 Mental Health Data Science meeting. The symposiums highlighted some of the best work in the field, focused on three of society’s pressing issues - inequality, diversity, and representativeness.
The meeting is now available on YouTube but here are our top four takeaways from the event.
- To support underserved groups, we need better data
- Systems are needed to help us learn from people with lived experience
- Changing definitions affect research – we need to be aware them
- Mental and physical health are related (and both research fields will benefit from working together)
What are your top takeaways? Share with the tag #MQDataScience
Top takeaway #1 – To support underserved groups, we need better data
The meeting provided a forum for important discussions about working with underserved and underrepresented populations. A key theme was “what gets measured gets managed” – the idea we can only address issues we have information about. Sarah Rees (Swansea University) provided a poignant quote from the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee: “You can’t commission for what you do not know… You cannot make change until you can prove need.”
It is clear then that to make positive change we must have good quality data to work with. However, Ann John’s (Swansea University) insightful keynote speech highlighted that data quality problems affect records for minority ethnic patients disproportionately. This is a problem for making sure that these groups get the help they need.
So how can we move forward to support underserved and underrepresented populations? Both Sarah and Lorenzo Bandieri (NHS) talked about innovative ways that missing data can be found, which will lead to a better understanding of the needs of underserved groups. Ann John called for improvements in the underlying quality of data to address the issue at the source.
Top takeaway #2 – Systems are needed to help us learn from people with lived experience
For mental health research to reach its full potential for impact, the field must incorporate the expertise of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. The speakers in Symposium 2 provided excellent examples of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in action.
What became apparent is that systems are needed to encourage and support researchers to undertake PPIE activities. One example is updating ethical approval processes; Iona Beange (University of Edinburgh) reported that they had difficulty with their project Depression Detectives as it did not fit into standard ethical approval application boxes. Another example is the development of platforms to make PPIE activities easier; Pauline Wheelan and Simon Foster (University of Manchester) explained that using platforms that encourage casual involvement, such as apps, leads to greater participation.
PPIE is an important practice that we must continually develop and promote. Whilst 69% of our attendees had conducted public engagement and 50% had involved people with lived experience in project planning and dissemination, only 13% had conduced co-produced or survivor/user-led research and 25% had not conducted PPIE activities at all. By creating easier ways to conduct PPIE, the practice will thrive.
What gets measured gets managed.
Top takeaway #3 – Changing definitions affect research – we need to be aware of them
In the third symposium on suicidality, it was clear that definitions can strongly affect the outcomes of research. Dermot O’Reilly and Aideen Maguire on behalf of Emma Ross (Queen’s University Belfast) both commented on the difficulties of coding and reporting suicides.
Much of the research in this area relies on routinely collected data. If new guidelines are brought in, the ways in which suicides are classified may change, and this in turn may affect the rates of suicides reported. If we are not aware of this change, we may come to false conclusions about changes in suicide rates.
It is clear then that changing definitions can impact research if we are not aware of them. In her own talk, Aideen recommended that to fully understand the context of data we need to communicate with service providers.
Top takeaway #4 – Mental and physical health are related (and both research fields will benefit from working together)
Mental and physical health research often occur separately. This limits our understanding of the relationships between conditions. Kerry Gutridge’s talk provided hope in this area with the proposal of an embedded common mental health dataset in physical health studies. This would lead to advances in the understanding of how mental and physical health are related.
By incorporating insights from the other field, both mental and physical health research can uncover new and important findings which will lead to improved quality of life. Indeed, the projects in our final symposium are excellent demonstrations of how physical health research is highly relevant to mental health research and vice versa.
Missed the MQ Mental Health Science Summit? Catch it on our YouTube channel today.
Saves the dates of our upcoming events!
The next Data Science Meetings will be held on 22dn & 23rd March 2022 and 13th & 14th September 2022 – hear from the mental health data science community about their ground-breaking findings.
MQ’s Mental Health Science Summit will take place on 18th & 19th May 2022 – attend one of the largest inter-disciplinary scientific meetings dedicated to mental health science.
