A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Mental Health Systems Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1186/s13033-023-00600-y
Mary Leamy, Una Foye, Anne Hirrich, Dagfin Bjørgen, Josh Silver, Alan Simpson, Madeline Ellis, Karl Johan-Johanson
{"title":"A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.","authors":"Mary Leamy, Una Foye, Anne Hirrich, Dagfin Bjørgen, Josh Silver, Alan Simpson, Madeline Ellis, Karl Johan-Johanson","doi":"10.1186/s13033-023-00600-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review aimed to update and extend the Williams and colleagues 2012 systematic review of measures of recovery-orientation of mental health services by examining whether any of the specific knowledge gaps identified in this original review had subsequently been addressed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review using CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and other sources, searched from 2012 until 2021. The conceptualisation of recovery and recovery-orientation of services was explored. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria and according to ease of use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen measures assessing aspects of the recovery orientation of services and staff were identified, of which ten met the eligibility. Psychometric properties were evaluated, and conceptualisations of recovery and recovery-orientation of services investigated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After over a decade of research in the field of recovery outcome measurement, there remains a lack of a single gold-standard measure of recovery-orientation of mental health services. There is a need for researchers to develop a new gold standard measure of recovery-orientation of services that is psychometrically valid and reliable, demonstrates sensitivity to change and is easy to use. It needs to show a good fit to an underpinning conceptual model/ framework of both personal recovery and recovery-oriented services and/or systems, with different versions for stakeholders at each level of an organisation or system.</p>","PeriodicalId":47752,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","volume":"17 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10580616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-023-00600-y","RegionNum":2,"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

Purpose: This review aimed to update and extend the Williams and colleagues 2012 systematic review of measures of recovery-orientation of mental health services by examining whether any of the specific knowledge gaps identified in this original review had subsequently been addressed.

Methods: A systematic review using CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and other sources, searched from 2012 until 2021. The conceptualisation of recovery and recovery-orientation of services was explored. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria and according to ease of use.

Results: Fourteen measures assessing aspects of the recovery orientation of services and staff were identified, of which ten met the eligibility. Psychometric properties were evaluated, and conceptualisations of recovery and recovery-orientation of services investigated.

Conclusion: After over a decade of research in the field of recovery outcome measurement, there remains a lack of a single gold-standard measure of recovery-orientation of mental health services. There is a need for researchers to develop a new gold standard measure of recovery-orientation of services that is psychometrically valid and reliable, demonstrates sensitivity to change and is easy to use. It needs to show a good fit to an underpinning conceptual model/ framework of both personal recovery and recovery-oriented services and/or systems, with different versions for stakeholders at each level of an organisation or system.

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
对心理健康服务机构和工作人员的个人康复导向措施的系统审查。
目的:本次审查旨在更新和扩展Williams及其同事2012年对心理健康服务康复导向措施的系统审查,通过审查本次原始审查中发现的任何具体知识差距是否已得到解决。方法:使用CINAHL、ASSIA、Embase、PsycINFO、Medline和其他来源进行系统综述,检索时间为2012年至2021年。探讨了回收的概念和服务的回收方向。使用质量标准并根据易用性对测量的心理测量特性进行评估。结果:确定了14项评估服务和工作人员康复方向的措施,其中10项符合资格。评估了心理测量特性,并调查了康复的概念和服务的康复方向。结论:经过十多年在康复结果测量领域的研究,仍然缺乏一个单一的心理健康服务康复方向的金标准衡量标准。研究人员有必要开发一种新的服务恢复导向金标准衡量标准,该标准在心理测量学上有效可靠,对变化敏感,易于使用。它需要显示出与个人康复和面向康复的服务和/或系统的基本概念模型/框架的良好匹配,为组织或系统的每个级别的利益相关者提供不同的版本。
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
6.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reducing stigma and improving access to care for people with mental health conditions in the community: protocol for a multi-site feasibility intervention study (Indigo-Local). Reach, uptake, and psychological outcomes of two publicly funded internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy programs in Ontario, Canada: an observational study. Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities. Evaluating Pakistan's mental healthcare system using World Health Organization's assessment instrument for mental health system (WHO-AIMS). A process study of early achievements and challenges in countries engaged with the WHO Special Initiative 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: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