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。

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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。

A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.

A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.

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.

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
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