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
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

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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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