基本网络:咨询利益攸关方和专家,以便更好地了解为澳大利亚卫生专业人员提供的混合护理精神卫生支持服务的实施情况。

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Australian Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/00049530.2024.2425614
Matthew Coleshill, Kelby Fransisca, Xiaoling Du, Melissa Black, Jill M Newby, Samuel Harvey, Helen Christensen, Peter Baldwin
{"title":"基本网络:咨询利益攸关方和专家,以便更好地了解为澳大利亚卫生专业人员提供的混合护理精神卫生支持服务的实施情况。","authors":"Matthew Coleshill, Kelby Fransisca, Xiaoling Du, Melissa Black, Jill M Newby, Samuel Harvey, Helen Christensen, Peter Baldwin","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2024.2425614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Essential Network (TEN) is a blended care mental health support service for Australian health professionals. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and researchers to understand health professionals' needs, canvas suggested changes to TEN, and examine methods of improving service uptake.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Nine semi-structured individual or group interviews were conducted with 10 TEN stakeholders (external stakeholders) and eight interviews were conducted with 18 researchers or related roles with experience implementing or evaluating mental health services for health professionals (internal experts). De-identified transcripts were thematically analysed using an inductive and deductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants highlighted the need for confidentiality, with mandatory reporting concerns being a key barrier to health professionals engaging with mental health services. External stakeholders viewed digital services as advantageous due to accessibility and anonymity, although both groups noted that concerns around effectiveness were a barrier to engagement with digital services. Both groups agreed that peer endorsement was key to implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital services were viewed as promising, but best employed alongside person-to-person options in a blended care format. Services that address the unique workplace culture of healthcare, including stigma and systemic barriers to help-seeking, can create effective and scalable support for health professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":"76 1","pages":"2425614"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12218516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Essential Network (TEN): consulting stakeholders and experts to better understand implementation of a blended care mental health support services for Australian health professionals.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Coleshill, Kelby Fransisca, Xiaoling Du, Melissa Black, Jill M Newby, Samuel Harvey, Helen Christensen, Peter Baldwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00049530.2024.2425614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Essential Network (TEN) is a blended care mental health support service for Australian health professionals. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and researchers to understand health professionals' needs, canvas suggested changes to TEN, and examine methods of improving service uptake.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Nine semi-structured individual or group interviews were conducted with 10 TEN stakeholders (external stakeholders) and eight interviews were conducted with 18 researchers or related roles with experience implementing or evaluating mental health services for health professionals (internal experts). De-identified transcripts were thematically analysed using an inductive and deductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants highlighted the need for confidentiality, with mandatory reporting concerns being a key barrier to health professionals engaging with mental health services. External stakeholders viewed digital services as advantageous due to accessibility and anonymity, although both groups noted that concerns around effectiveness were a barrier to engagement with digital services. Both groups agreed that peer endorsement was key to implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital services were viewed as promising, but best employed alongside person-to-person options in a blended care format. Services that address the unique workplace culture of healthcare, including stigma and systemic barriers to help-seeking, can create effective and scalable support for health professionals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"2425614\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12218516/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2024.2425614\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2024.2425614","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:基本网络(TEN)是澳大利亚卫生专业人员的混合护理精神卫生支持服务。我们对主要利益相关者和研究人员进行了一系列半结构化访谈,以了解卫生专业人员的需求,建议对TEN进行更改,并检查改善服务吸收的方法。方法:对10名TEN利益相关者(外部利益相关者)进行了9次半结构化的个人或小组访谈,对18名具有实施或评估卫生专业人员心理健康服务经验的研究人员或相关角色(内部专家)进行了8次访谈。使用归纳和演绎方法对去识别转录本进行主题分析。结果:与会者强调了保密的必要性,强制性报告问题是卫生专业人员参与精神卫生服务的主要障碍。外部利益相关者认为,由于可访问性和匿名性,数字服务具有优势,尽管这两个群体都指出,对有效性的担忧是参与数字服务的障碍。双方一致认为,同行认可是实施的关键。结论:数字服务被认为是有前途的,但最好与人对人的混合护理形式一起使用。解决独特的卫生保健工作场所文化(包括耻辱感和寻求帮助的系统性障碍)的服务可以为卫生专业人员提供有效和可扩展的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Essential Network (TEN): consulting stakeholders and experts to better understand implementation of a blended care mental health support services for Australian health professionals.

The Essential Network (TEN): consulting stakeholders and experts to better understand implementation of a blended care mental health support services for Australian health professionals.

The Essential Network (TEN): consulting stakeholders and experts to better understand implementation of a blended care mental health support services for Australian health professionals.

The Essential Network (TEN): consulting stakeholders and experts to better understand implementation of a blended care mental health support services for Australian health professionals.

Objective: The Essential Network (TEN) is a blended care mental health support service for Australian health professionals. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and researchers to understand health professionals' needs, canvas suggested changes to TEN, and examine methods of improving service uptake.

Method: Nine semi-structured individual or group interviews were conducted with 10 TEN stakeholders (external stakeholders) and eight interviews were conducted with 18 researchers or related roles with experience implementing or evaluating mental health services for health professionals (internal experts). De-identified transcripts were thematically analysed using an inductive and deductive approach.

Results: Participants highlighted the need for confidentiality, with mandatory reporting concerns being a key barrier to health professionals engaging with mental health services. External stakeholders viewed digital services as advantageous due to accessibility and anonymity, although both groups noted that concerns around effectiveness were a barrier to engagement with digital services. Both groups agreed that peer endorsement was key to implementation.

Conclusions: Digital services were viewed as promising, but best employed alongside person-to-person options in a blended care format. Services that address the unique workplace culture of healthcare, including stigma and systemic barriers to help-seeking, can create effective and scalable support for health professionals.

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
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信