比较服务使用者在 COVID-19 封锁之前和期间对精神病早期干预服务的看法:服务评估

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Mental Health Review Journal Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1108/mhrj-09-2022-0060
Nikita Sakaria, Christopher Sanderson, Simon Watkins, Victoria Boynton
{"title":"比较服务使用者在 COVID-19 封锁之前和期间对精神病早期干预服务的看法:服务评估","authors":"Nikita Sakaria, Christopher Sanderson, Simon Watkins, Victoria Boynton","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-09-2022-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis.\n\n\nFindings\nData showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Nikita Sakaria, Christopher Sanderson, Simon Watkins, Victoria Boynton\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mhrj-09-2022-0060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018).\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nData showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-09-2022-0060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-09-2022-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本服务评估旨在利用定性和定量方法了解在冠状病毒大流行期间使用精神病早期干预(EIP)服务的服务用户(SUs)的经历,并将这些经历与之前在同一服务机构内进行的大流行前研究(Watkins 等人,2018 年)进行比较。通过问卷调查和个人访谈提供定量和定性数据。根据结果建立描述性统计和 T 检验置信区间,并与 Watkins 等人(2018 年)的研究结果进行比较。访谈内容逐字誊写,并使用 Braun 和 Clarke(2006 年)的主题分析法进行分析。结果数据显示,参与者对服务的各个领域基本满意,其中 "工作或教育"、"生活技能 "和 "成瘾 "得分最高。虽然参与者没有报告总体不满意度,但与沃特金斯等人(2018 年)的研究结果相比,"社交活动 "的满意度有所下降,这可能是由于在此期间国家为控制冠状病毒的传播而实施了限制措施。访谈分析确定了三个重要主题,与之前的文献一致,强调了恢复期间人际关系和验证的重要性。研究局限性/影响本次评估没有考虑参与者是在大流行之前还是仅在大流行期间使用过服务,这意味着一些参与者可以与大流行前的服务进行比较,而另一些参与者则可能没有。同样,参与者也与 Watkins 等人(2018 年)的评估对象不同,这意味着无法对大流行前后的经历进行直接比较。此外,该评估仅收集了大流行初期的一个时间点的数据;因此,客户对服务的体验是否随着大流行和限制措施的持续而有所不同,尚不得而知。原创性/价值Covid-19 大流行对医疗服务来说是前所未有的挑战,其影响也被广泛报道。这项临床服务评估提供了一个宝贵的视角,让我们了解服务使用者在全球健康危机期间接受心理健康服务的经历,并进一步将其与大流行前的服务和使用者的经历进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation
Purpose This service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018). Design/methodology/approach This paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. Findings Data showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery. Research limitations/implications This evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time. Originality/value The Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Understanding gender-responsive needs of girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE): menstrual cycle considerations Editorial: The British and Irish group for the study of personality disorder: reflections on the 23rd annual conference The “Team Tree” Professional Tree of Life intervention: development and evaluation within the acute inpatient psychiatric setting Systematicity of receiving mental health care predicts better subjective well-being of Ukrainians during the second year of the Russian invasion Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation
×
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