Display options
Share it on

Int J Ment Health Syst. 2018 Oct 20;12:60. doi: 10.1186/s13033-018-0244-9. eCollection 2018.

Consumer and staff perspectives of the implementation frequency and value of recovery and wellbeing oriented practices.

International journal of mental health systems

Keren E Wolstencroft, Frank P Deane, Cara L Jones, Adam Zimmermann, Merrilee Cox

Affiliations

  1. 1Neami National, Wollongong, NSW Australia.
  2. 2Illawarra Institute for Mental Health, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW Australia.
  3. 3School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW Australia.
  4. KPMG Australia Services Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia.
  5. Mental Health Association of Central Australia, Alice Springs, NT Australia.

PMID: 30377442 PMCID: PMC6195683 DOI: 10.1186/s13033-018-0244-9

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in our understanding of what mental health systems and services can do to enhance recovery and wellbeing outcomes for people seeking support, there is limited evidence demonstrating that this body of work has translated successfully into mental health service practice. The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) is a practice framework that has been designed to support application of recovery and wellbeing oriented principles and practices within mental health service delivery. The aims of this study were to assess consumer and staff perceptions of implementation frequency during service engagement and the value of this approach for assisting recovery within a setting where the CRM approach had been adopted.

METHODS: The setting was a large Australian community managed mental health organisation. The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of consumer (

RESULTS: Key practice elements of the model were applied during service interactions at a high level and perceived by the majority of consumers and staff participants as being important or very important for assisting recovery. Significant moderate correlations were found between the extent that practice elements were valued and the level at which they were applied. Higher levels of implementation of CRM practices were associated with higher ratings of perceived session helpfulness. The strongest association was between 'encouragement to set tasks to complete between support visits' and perceived helpfulness.

CONCLUSIONS: Consumer and staff responses revealed that the key practice elements of the CRM were frequently implemented during service engagement interactions and were seen as valuable for assisting recovery. The level of agreement between raters suggests firstly, that the key practice elements were apparent and able to be rated as occurring, and secondly that the CRM approach is seen as responsive to consumer needs. The results have implications for translating recovery and wellbeing oriented knowledge into mental health service practice.

Keywords: Coaching; Implementation; Mental health; Practice; Recovery; Service; Training; Translation; Wellbeing

References

  1. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018 Jul;45(4):635-648 - PubMed
  2. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;24(1):5-10 - PubMed
  3. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Aug;15(4):654-9 - PubMed
  4. World Psychiatry. 2014 Feb;13(1):12-20 - PubMed
  5. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;45(4):267-80 - PubMed
  6. Br J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;199(6):445-52 - PubMed
  7. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2008 Apr-Jun;17(2):128-37 - PubMed
  8. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Jan;67(1):10-2 - PubMed
  9. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;17(6):1102-7 - PubMed
  10. Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Oct;195(4):283-5 - PubMed
  11. Community Ment Health J. 2005 Apr;41(2):141-58 - PubMed
  12. BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Jun 13;13:167 - PubMed
  13. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2012 Spring;35(4):297-304 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Psychother. 2017 Mar;90(1):1-24 - PubMed
  15. Australas Psychiatry. 2005 Sep;13(3):279-84 - PubMed
  16. J Ment Health. 2017 Jul 12;:1-7 - PubMed
  17. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2010;47(3):198-205 - PubMed
  18. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;37(5):586-94 - PubMed
  19. Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Jan;57(1):120-2 - PubMed
  20. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jan 26;10:26 - PubMed
  21. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Dec;62(12):1470-6 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Psychol. 2007 Jul;63(7):695-705 - PubMed
  23. Aust Occup Ther J. 2012 Jun;59(3):218-24 - PubMed
  24. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Apr;33(2):164-73 - PubMed
  25. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018 Jan;45(1):91-102 - PubMed
  26. Implement Sci. 2015 Jun 10;10:87 - PubMed
  27. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Jan;38(1):4-23 - PubMed
  28. Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Oct;64(10):974-80 - PubMed
  29. Collegian. 2017;24(1):53-61 - PubMed
  30. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Jun;16(3):451-5 - PubMed
  31. BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 30;7(8):e017080 - PubMed
  32. World Psychiatry. 2012 Oct;11(3):156-60 - PubMed
  33. J Ment Health. 2012 Apr;21(2):99-103 - PubMed
  34. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014 Sep;41(5):660-7 - PubMed
  35. Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Oct;57(10):1497-500 - PubMed
  36. Am Psychol. 2007 Feb-Mar;62(2):95-108 - PubMed
  37. Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;201(6):430-4 - PubMed
  38. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2009 Dec 15;28(2):17-33 - PubMed
  39. Aust Health Rev. 2006 Aug;30(3):305-9 - PubMed
  40. Nurs Res. 2010 May-Jun;59(3):158-65 - PubMed
  41. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2011 Sep;Suppl 7:10-8 - PubMed

Publication Types