Promoting research through video abstracts

Welcome to the first issue of 2017. This year heralds a time of uncertainty and a fear of the unknown coupled with an oddly discordant need for change. Such times underscore the need for objective thinking based on rigorously collected evidence that can be used to inform clinical decisions and more broadly, service delivery and policy. Hence, it is my pleasure to present this issue, which demonstrates not only the sheer breadth and diversity of papers that we receive but also the achievements and successes of new research. Collectively, these papers demonstrate how well these authors have met the fundamental aim of this journal which is to showcase innovative and solid research with real world implications to clinical practice, service delivery and policy.

In the first instance, Stewart, McGillivrary, Forbes, and Austin (2017) propose a traumatic stress framework for parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, which they suggest may assist in conceptualising some parents’ experiences of rearing their children, and resultant symptomatology. They continue by arguing that such a framework may be usefully employed to inform interventions and screening instruments. Relatedly, another paper in this issue by Kauer, Buhagiar, and Sanci (2017) describes the theoretical basis of an online navigation tool that aims to promote young adults’ mental health help-seeking. Once again, the authors argue that a conceptual framework may provide clarity around specific change elements and explain why some interventions succeed while others do not. Implicit to both articles is the need to articulate a conceptual theoretical framework to inform practice and subsequent evaluation, a point which I have made previously in this journal (Reupert et al., 2009).

Consumer input is explored in many of the papers of this issue. Pilkington, Rominov, Milne, Giallo, and Whelan (2017) describe an online intervention, Partners to Parents, that aims to enhance partner support and thereby prevent perinatal depression and anxiety. Having already partially developed the website through various systematic means, their study aimed to investigate mothers and fathers’ perceptions of the usability of the website and use their views to refine the design of the intervention. Other papers examine the experiences of consumers or other stakeholders of various services, including mental health. Salamone-Violi, Chur-Hansen, and Winefield (2017) identified the perceptions and experiences of carers whose children were accessing mental health services. Sheedy, McLean, Jacobs, and Sanderson (2017) identified various protective factors that may contribute to resilience in chronic pain, to further inform the development of interventions for those experiencing chronic pain. Coates, Davis, and Campbell (2017) investigated the experiences of women who had accessed a perinatal infant mental health service. Each paper provides a voice for those who have direct experiences with different health services via researchers who typically sit independently from these services. The remaining paper in this issue presents nurses’ perceptions of the assessment of antipsychotic medication side effects (Morrison, Stomski, & Meehan, 2017) which provides yet another perspective about how services work with consumers and their families.

Many of the issues raised in the papers in this issue relate to whether and how services and practitioners employ (or as the case might have it, not employ) best practice guidelines in the area of mental health prevention, promotion and early intervention. Furthermore, each paper, as per journal requirements, highlights specific clinical, professional development, service delivery and/or policy implications. Despite volumes of research being produced every year, the literature is replete with instances of new and important findings not being actively applied by practitioners, managers or policy makers. As Waddell (2001) points out, different stakeholders operate in different social and organisational settings that reply on different kinds of evidence, received through various kinds of communication formats. While I acknowledge the complexity of dissemination cannot be reduced to simplistic and formulaic solutions, in 2017, we plan to introduce some changes to the journal aimed at addressing some of these issues, with a particular focus on ease of access. This offering, in the way of video abstracts, has two broad aims; first, to help researchers communicate their findings more effectively and simply, and second, to make research more accessible and convenient for end users.

To this end, video abstracts are a new initiative of the journal which will further increase the visibility of our authors and their work. Video abstracts typically communicate the background of a study, the methodology employed, the study results and potential implications, much like a text based abstract might do. However, a video abstract offers the potential to do more by providing authors an opportunity to communicate their research in a personal, media rich medium. Spicer (2014) suggests that another benefit is that the very process of producing a video can be helpful for authors in understanding their research in new ways. Video abstracts might also influence the ultimate impact and usage of the article. In one of the few studies in this area, Spicer (2014) explored the relationship between article usage and corresponding video abstract usage and found that the top 25 and 100 read articles had a significantly higher presence of video abstracts than articles overall in the study data set. As Spicer (2014) cautions, this does not in itself indicate that having a video abstract alone will necessarily make an article more popular, as there are many variables that will influence whether and how an article is subsequently used. It does however serve to highlight the potential of video abstracts to reach out to our readers in new ways and one which we would urge potential authors to consider.

In terms of other developments in the journal, we are planning a special issue titled ‘Supporting adult behaviour change in family-based interventions’ with guest editors from the Parenting Research Centre. This issue will focus on innovations in prevention and early intervention in family-based interventions aimed at supporting positive mental health among children and parents. More information can be found at the journal website and we would encourage potential authors to contact the guest editors for more information, including deadlines. This issue looks promising in terms of informing family functioning and designing optimal intervention support for children and their caregivers.

Finally, it is with much pleasure and indeed relief that I would like to introduce Lefteris Patlamazoglou, as the Editorial Assistant to the journal, a newly created role. Lefteris’s role is to promote the articles of this journal in social media and other online platforms and support authors in developing video abstracts. Lefteris is currently completing a PhD in psychology, investigating the bereavement experiences of same-sex partners and their impact on subsequent relationships. He has experience working as a family counsellor with court-ordered parents, a fertility counsellor with IVF patients, and a teaching associate at Monash University.

 In sum, there are changes ahead, for the world at large and on a much smaller scale, for the journal, but I trust you accompany us for what promises to be interesting if not challenging times ahead. In the meantime we hope that the articles in this issue will be of practical relevance to readers working across a range of increasingly challenging settings in mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.