E. Fossey, C. Harvey, P. Ennals, A. Wiggins, J. Farhall
{"title":"From evidence to realities: psychosocial intervention provision in Australian routine community mental health practice","authors":"E. Fossey, C. Harvey, P. Ennals, A. Wiggins, J. Farhall","doi":"10.1080/17522439.2021.2023615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background This study explored care co-ordinator reports about provision of six evidence-based psychosocial interventions (PSIs) for people living with psychosis, to better understand decision-making about provision. Methods Conducted as an adjunct to the Second Australian National Survey of Psychosis in one catchment area, care co-ordinators completed a structured interview about evidence-based PSIs provided to 33 consumers as part of their community mental health care. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Results Care co-ordinators reported most consumers were provided at least one of the PSIs during the previous year; all were provided at least one non-evidence-based, typically briefer or simpler, alternative. Relapse Prevention Planning using early warning signs was reported as most provided; Family Psychoeducation was the least provided but rated as most helpful. The primary reason for non-provision of PSIs was that they had not been offered, with lack of relevance the most cited explanation. Conclusions PSIs may be more commonly provided than previously reported, if non-evidence-based alternatives are also considered: reasons for not offering evidence-based PSIs require further study. Meaningful guidelines are needed about when and how to offer PSIs in collaborative practice, including briefer or simpler interventions when preferred over more complex interventions.","PeriodicalId":46344,"journal":{"name":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","volume":"15 1","pages":"155 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2021.2023615","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background This study explored care co-ordinator reports about provision of six evidence-based psychosocial interventions (PSIs) for people living with psychosis, to better understand decision-making about provision. Methods Conducted as an adjunct to the Second Australian National Survey of Psychosis in one catchment area, care co-ordinators completed a structured interview about evidence-based PSIs provided to 33 consumers as part of their community mental health care. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Results Care co-ordinators reported most consumers were provided at least one of the PSIs during the previous year; all were provided at least one non-evidence-based, typically briefer or simpler, alternative. Relapse Prevention Planning using early warning signs was reported as most provided; Family Psychoeducation was the least provided but rated as most helpful. The primary reason for non-provision of PSIs was that they had not been offered, with lack of relevance the most cited explanation. Conclusions PSIs may be more commonly provided than previously reported, if non-evidence-based alternatives are also considered: reasons for not offering evidence-based PSIs require further study. Meaningful guidelines are needed about when and how to offer PSIs in collaborative practice, including briefer or simpler interventions when preferred over more complex interventions.