Instructions – present an oral report on a major mental health study. Upload an outline of your presentation.
Topic should be approved prior.
Approved topic/Link –
(Please use the link to complete ONLY the highlighted sections) The rest has been done. Please do take look at the rest of the content to make sure content in the highlighted sections align with what’s been already written.
Please also complete the critique of each highlighted sections below as well.
Presentation on Mental Health Policy Research Report
Outline of Instructions with Grading Criteria Included
· Identification of the researcher’s/author’s credentials (e.g., position, education, experience).
· Identification of the researcher’s/author’s credentials (i.e. profession, position, education, experience, etc.)
· Problem studied—why important?
· Identification of the problem studied in the report and a discussion of why it is important (not only to you and/or the researcher/author, but also to the broader society – i.e. how will this study enhance our knowledge/practice/abilities working with this population?)
· Hypotheses of the study
· Identification of the hypothesis(es)/research questions of the study
· Methodology
· Identification of the methodology used (i.e. quantitative or qualitative; experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental; use of comparison/control group; case study, ethnography, grounded theory, narrative, etc.)
· Mishra and Varma (2023) used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a brief overview of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
· They used research from databases like PubMed which provide summaries and abstracts of research (Mishra & Varma, 2023; National Library of Medicine, n.d.)
· As exclusion criteria, they cut out all studies that did not contain their own original data, and they only used studies that were available in English (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· They used the most current reports available from sources that issue reports on a regular basis (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· After screening 2150 studies they included 40 studies in their review (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· Findings
· The study’s findings
· Mishra and Varma (2023) found that complex factors are responsible for the development of GAD including genetics, neurochemical factors such as noradrenergic activity, ganna-aminobutyric acid, serotonin, and dopamine, and other factors such as substance use, occupation, and behavioral characteristics.
· They found that there are common physiological responses found in people with GAD such as enhanced emotional reactivity and state of arousal, neuromuscular tension, excessive fatigue, difficulty sitting still, sleeping disorders, excessive attachment to unnecessary objects or routines, decreased concentration, memory issues, irritability, increased heart rate, physical weakness, and an inability to self soothe (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· Mishra and Varma (2023) found that the DSM-5 criteria is most often used in the diagnosis of GAD, with symptoms lasting at least six months, and the most common comorbid psychiatric disorder being major depressive disorder.
· Mishra and Varma (2023) found that both pharmacological and behavioral therapies are used in the treatment of GAD.
· Pharmacological therapies they include are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) such as fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, and citalopram (Mishra & Varma, 2023). They also include selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) such as venlafaxine and duloxetine (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· Other pharmacological treatments include buspirone and benzodiazepines, but the authors note their potential for abuse (Mishra & Varma, 2023).
· Behavioral therapies Mishra and Varma (2023) include in their findings are cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), computer-aided psychotherapy (CP), supportive therapy, and applied relaxation therapy (AR).
· Conclusions—implications for policy and recovery-oriented practice in the mental health field
· The study’s recommendations for policy, practice and/or future research
·
Critique of the study
· Your critique of the study (which should include your perspectives on each item above – the problem studied and how they chose to study it, their hypothesis/research questions and how they fit the goals/aims of the study, how the methodology is or is not appropriate for their research questions/hypotheses, how the findings are presented, and the recommendations made – are there any limitations not discussed, any recommendations you can make to enhance the study, and so on).
Subheading: Critique Overview
· Mishra and Varma (2023) provide a brief overview of the origins, diagnosis, and treatment GAD. The aim of their study is, by all appearances, to provide a brief overview of the disorder for the medical community. Perhaps because their study is targeted to be read by the medical community it is relatively breif to read, but lacks the focus on socioeconomic and developmental factors that are often emphasized by both social work and psychology researchers. Because of this, their presentation of GAD is a very medicalized view of the disorder.
· Mishra and Varma (2023) include a wide variety of anxiety disorders under the umbrella of generalized anxiety disorder, which is not supported by the criteria of the DSM5-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). GAD is its own specific disorder and has differing diagnostic criteria from OCD and social phobia even if they might be co-occurring (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). It seems that in their desire for brevity that would appeal to an overburdened medical community, they mischaracterized the scope of GAD in a way that does not align with the DSM5-TR’s organization of anxiety disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). This could lead to clients not receiving the right care as differing anxiety disorders have different treatments and even different medication recommendations (Seif & Winston, 2014).
Subheading: Critique of Credentials
Subheading: Critique of Topic Importance
Subheading: Critique of Hypotheses
Subheading: Critique of Methodology
· According to the National Library of Medicine (n.d.) PubMed and services resources like it do not contain full journal articles. This means that the information that the study’s authors used was only abstracts and summaries that contained the original data. While using data for a meta-analysis is a way to gain in-depth insight, the context in which the data was gathered can be lost without reviewing the full journal articles. It is unclear how Mishra and Varma (2023) used this data, as they have provided no quantitative results in their study despite their assertion that they used original data.
· Additionally, the study’s authors failed to provide in-depth demographic and socioeconomic information about the people who were studied. This is notable as this information is readily available in the DSM5-TR and is noted to have an impact on the development and course of the disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).
Subheading: Critique of Findings
· Mishra and Varma’s (2023) research is missing risk factors such as trauma, socioeconomic status, and epigenetic activation by stressors. These things are mentioned by Mechanic et al. (2014) as important considerations in the development of mental health disorders.
· Additionally, Mishra and Varma (2023) did not mention the use of combined pharmacological and behavioral therapies which is commonplace. The most important exclusion though is extinction therapy, which is widely regarded by experts on anxiety as a primary treatment model for all anxiety disorders (Seif & Winston, 2014).
Subheading: Critique of Conclusions
· References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
Mechanic, D., McAlpine D. D., & Rochefort D. A. (2014).
Mental health and social policy: Beyond managed care (6th ed.). Pearson.
Mishra, A. K., & Varma, A. R. (2023). A Comprehensive review of the generalized anxiety disorder.
Cureus, 15(9)
National Library of Medicine. (n.d.).
What is PubMed?.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/pubmed/mesh/mod00/01-000.html#:~:text=PubMed%C2%AE%20is%20the%20National,biomedical%20and%20life%20sciences%20literature.
Seif, M. N., & Winston, S. (2014).
What every therapist needs to know about anxiety disorders: Key concepts, insights, and interventions. Routledge.
Instructions from Canvas
In groups of 3-4, present an oral report on a major mental health study. This review should include the following points:
1.
Identification of the researcher’s/author’s credentials (e.g., position, education, experience).
2.
Problem studied—why important?
3.
Hypotheses of the study
4.
Methodology
5.
Findings
6.
Conclusions—implications for policy and recovery-oriented practice in the mental health field
7.
Critique of the study
Upload an outline of your presentation. Depending on the class format, you may also be asked to provide class members with an outline of your presentation, including the title and authors.
Grading Criteria (Total Possible Points: 15)
· Instructor approved research report is selected and presented
(2 points)
· Slides containing the following information are included in your presentation:
(8 points)
· Identification of the researcher’s/author’s credentials (i.e. profession, position, education, experience, etc.)
· Identification of the problem studied in the report and a discussion of why it is important (not only to you and/or the researcher/author, but also to the broader society – i.e. how will this study enhance our knowledge/practice/abilities working with this population?)
· Identification of the hypothesis(es)/research questions of the study
· Identification of the methodology used (i.e. quantitative or qualitative; experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental; use of comparison/control group; case study, ethnography, grounded theory, narrative, etc.)
· The study’s findings
· The study’s recommendations for policy, practice and/or future research
· Your critique of the study (which should include your perspectives on each item above – the problem studied and how they chose to study it, their hypothesis/research questions and how they fit the goals/aims of the study, how the methodology is or is not appropriate for their research questions/hypotheses, how the findings are presented, and the recommendations made – are there any limitations not discussed, any recommendations you can make to enhance the study, and so on).
· Paper is clear and concise
(3 points)
· Information is grammatically appropriate and APA formatting is adhered to (i.e. in references pages, etc.)
(2 points)
