Staff views about involving service users in team formulation

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Psychology and Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1111/papt.12462
Alissa Miners, Daniel Pratt, Louisa Shirley
{"title":"Staff views about involving service users in team formulation","authors":"Alissa Miners,&nbsp;Daniel Pratt,&nbsp;Louisa Shirley","doi":"10.1111/papt.12462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of the study was to explore staff views about whether and how service users should be involved in the process of team formulation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>This study used Q methodology to explore health care professionals' views about service user involvement in team formulation meetings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Forty staff members with experience of attending team formulation meetings completed a Q Sort in which they ranked how much they agreed or disagreed with 58 statements about service user inclusion in team formulation. Factor analysis was used to identify viewpoints within the data set.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A three-factor solution accounting for 60% of the variance was considered the best fit for the data. The factors were: ‘A safe space for staff’, ‘Concerns about inclusion and collaboration’ and ‘Service users might find attendance harmful’. Consensus statements identified areas where all participants agreed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This is an important area for exploration, given the growing practice of team formulation and the professional and ethical issues raised by service user involvement. There are a range of ways to promote inclusion within the practice, and staff should always consider the individual needs of service users.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":54539,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/papt.12462","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/papt.12462","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the study was to explore staff views about whether and how service users should be involved in the process of team formulation.

Design

This study used Q methodology to explore health care professionals' views about service user involvement in team formulation meetings.

Methods

Forty staff members with experience of attending team formulation meetings completed a Q Sort in which they ranked how much they agreed or disagreed with 58 statements about service user inclusion in team formulation. Factor analysis was used to identify viewpoints within the data set.

Results

A three-factor solution accounting for 60% of the variance was considered the best fit for the data. The factors were: ‘A safe space for staff’, ‘Concerns about inclusion and collaboration’ and ‘Service users might find attendance harmful’. Consensus statements identified areas where all participants agreed.

Conclusions

This is an important area for exploration, given the growing practice of team formulation and the professional and ethical issues raised by service user involvement. There are a range of ways to promote inclusion within the practice, and staff should always consider the individual needs of service users.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
员工对让服务使用者参与团队组成的看法
目的本研究旨在探讨员工对服务使用者是否及如何参与团队建构过程的看法。设计本研究采用Q方法探讨医疗专业人员对服务使用者参与团队制定会议的看法。方法40名有参加团队制定会议经验的工作人员完成了一项Q排序,对58项关于团队制定中服务用户纳入的陈述的同意或不同意程度进行了排序。因子分析用于识别数据集中的观点。结果占60%方差的三因素解决方案被认为是数据的最佳拟合。这些因素包括:“为员工提供一个安全的空间”、“对包容和合作的担忧”以及“服务用户可能会发现出勤有害”。共识声明确定了所有与会者都同意的领域。这是一个值得探索的重要领域,因为团队制定的实践越来越多,服务用户参与引发了专业和道德问题。在实践中有一系列促进包容的方法,员工应始终考虑服务使用者的个人需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice (formerly The British Journal of Medical Psychology) is an international scientific journal with a focus on the psychological and social processes that underlie the development and improvement of psychological problems and mental wellbeing, including: theoretical and research development in the understanding of cognitive and emotional factors in psychological problems; behaviour and relationships; vulnerability to, adjustment to, assessment of, and recovery (assisted or otherwise) from psychological distresses; psychological therapies with a focus on understanding the processes which affect outcomes where mental health is concerned.
期刊最新文献
Adult stakeholders' perspectives on supporting or undermining the mental health of sexual and gender minoritised adolescents. A qualitative study exploring participants experiences of the Mental Imagery for Suicidality in Students Trial. Lost in translation? Qualitative interviews with Australian psychedelic-assisted therapy trial clinicians. ‘Cheering on from the side‐lines’: The perceived impact of romantic partner's commentary and behaviour on maintaining women's appearance anxiety 'Like walking with someone as opposed to trying to catch up to them'-Dynamics at play when clinicians and young people formulate together.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1