In Pursuit of Recovery: A Comparative Study of Stakeholder Perspectives on Outcomes of People with Psychosis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Community Mental Health Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1007/s10597-024-01399-9
Violet van Dee, Wilma Swildens, Hugo G Schnack, Wiepke Cahn
{"title":"In Pursuit of Recovery: A Comparative Study of Stakeholder Perspectives on Outcomes of People with Psychosis.","authors":"Violet van Dee, Wilma Swildens, Hugo G Schnack, Wiepke Cahn","doi":"10.1007/s10597-024-01399-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is no consensus on the definition of recovery of people with psychosis. This may be attributed to the broad concept including clinical, functional and personal recovery domains and the diverse interests of stakeholders involved. We hypothesized that service users, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals would exhibit differences in prioritization, reflecting varying roles and viewpoints. Through an open online anonymous questionnaire, stakeholders shared their perspectives on most important aspects of clinical, functional and personal recovery and on facilitators and barriers of recovery. Stakeholder collaboration in study design and interpretation enhanced the study's robustness. The answers on open questions of respondents were categorized for statistical analyses to compare the answers between respondent groups on the different aspects of recovery. 226 stakeholders participated. While commonalities prevailed, distinctions emerged in recovery domain priorities. Service users and informal caregivers accorded equal importance to clinical, functional and personal recovery, whereas healthcare professionals emphasized clinical recovery. Regarding functional recovery, service users seemed to focus on practical issues while informal caregivers addressed the underlying causes. Disparities were notable in the role of healthcare that was considered as both a facilitator or a barrier to recovery, with informal caregivers prioritizing aspects of healthcare more frequently as most important than healthcare professionals. While commonalities prevailed, we identified several differences in prioritizing recovery domains among stakeholder groups. Awareness and understanding of these differences is crucial for effective communication and collaboration between stakeholders in recovery-oriented healthcare. The study underscores the need for ongoing dialogue between stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":10654,"journal":{"name":"Community Mental Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"300-313"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11772473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Mental Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01399-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is no consensus on the definition of recovery of people with psychosis. This may be attributed to the broad concept including clinical, functional and personal recovery domains and the diverse interests of stakeholders involved. We hypothesized that service users, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals would exhibit differences in prioritization, reflecting varying roles and viewpoints. Through an open online anonymous questionnaire, stakeholders shared their perspectives on most important aspects of clinical, functional and personal recovery and on facilitators and barriers of recovery. Stakeholder collaboration in study design and interpretation enhanced the study's robustness. The answers on open questions of respondents were categorized for statistical analyses to compare the answers between respondent groups on the different aspects of recovery. 226 stakeholders participated. While commonalities prevailed, distinctions emerged in recovery domain priorities. Service users and informal caregivers accorded equal importance to clinical, functional and personal recovery, whereas healthcare professionals emphasized clinical recovery. Regarding functional recovery, service users seemed to focus on practical issues while informal caregivers addressed the underlying causes. Disparities were notable in the role of healthcare that was considered as both a facilitator or a barrier to recovery, with informal caregivers prioritizing aspects of healthcare more frequently as most important than healthcare professionals. While commonalities prevailed, we identified several differences in prioritizing recovery domains among stakeholder groups. Awareness and understanding of these differences is crucial for effective communication and collaboration between stakeholders in recovery-oriented healthcare. The study underscores the need for ongoing dialogue between stakeholders.

Abstract Image

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
追求康复:利益相关者对精神病患者结局的比较研究。
对于精神病患者康复的定义还没有达成共识。这可能归因于包括临床、功能和个人恢复领域在内的广泛概念以及所涉及的利益相关者的不同利益。我们假设服务使用者、非正式护理人员和医疗保健专业人员在优先级上表现出差异,反映了不同的角色和观点。通过一份公开的在线匿名问卷,利益相关者分享了他们对临床、功能和个人康复的最重要方面以及康复的促进因素和障碍的看法。利益相关者在研究设计和解释方面的合作增强了研究的稳健性。受访者对开放性问题的回答进行了分类,以进行统计分析,以比较受访者群体对恢复不同方面的回答。226名利益相关者参加了会议。虽然普遍存在共性,但在恢复领域的优先级方面出现了差异。服务使用者和非正式护理人员同等重视临床、功能和个人康复,而保健专业人员则强调临床康复。关于功能恢复,服务使用者似乎侧重于实际问题,而非正式照顾者则解决根本原因。在被视为促进康复或阻碍康复的医疗保健作用方面存在显著差异,非正式护理人员比医疗保健专业人员更经常优先考虑医疗保健方面的问题。虽然共性占了上风,但我们在利益相关者群体中确定了恢复领域优先级的几个差异。认识和理解这些差异对于以康复为导向的医疗保健的利益相关者之间的有效沟通和协作至关重要。该研究强调了利益攸关方之间持续对话的必要性。
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
5.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: Community Mental Health Journal focuses on the needs of people experiencing serious forms of psychological distress, as well as the structures established to address those needs. Areas of particular interest include critical examination of current paradigms of diagnosis and treatment, socio-structural determinants of mental health, social hierarchies within the public mental health systems, and the intersection of public mental health programs and social/racial justice and health equity. While this is the journal of the American Association for Community Psychiatry, we welcome manuscripts reflecting research from a range of disciplines on recovery-oriented services, public health policy, clinical delivery systems, advocacy, and emerging and innovative practices.
期刊最新文献
Correction: A 10-year Multisite Evaluation of an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Employment Program Based in an Australian Community Mental Health Service. A 10-year Multisite Evaluation of an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Employment Program Based in an Australian Community Mental Health Service. Understanding Factors Associated with 911 and 988 Use in Mental Health Crises. Exploring Treatment Completion and Participant Feedback in an Adapted Intervention among Incarcerated Men with Mental Illness. Service User Experiences and Perspectives of Social Prescribing Services for Mental Health.
×
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:604180095
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