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

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
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":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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":"","PubModel":"","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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信