Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25540670›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2014

"Walking alongside:" collaborative practices in mental health and substance use care.

Ottar Ness, Marit Borg, Randi Semb, Bengt Karlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. One or Many Recoveries? Recoveries in the Plural for a Better Understanding of One's Healing Journey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ottar NessCentre for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, P.O. Box 7053, 3007 Drammen, Norway.
Marit BorgCentre for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, P.O. Box 7053, 3007 Drammen, Norway.
Randi SembCentre for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, P.O. Box 7053, 3007 Drammen, Norway.
Bengt KarlssonCentre for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, P.O. Box 7053, 3007 Drammen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the importance of collaboration is well established as a principle in research and in theory, what it actually means for practitioners to collaborate in practice, to be partners in a collaborative relationship, has thus far been given less attention. The aim of this study was to identify key characteristics of the ways in which mental health practitioners collaborate with service users and their families in practice.

methodsThis was a qualitative action research study, with a cooperative inquiry approach that used multi-staged focus group discussions with ten mental health care and social work practitioners in community mental health and substance use care. Thematic analysis was applied to identify common characteristics.

resultsWe identified three major themes related to practitioners' experiences of collaborative practices: (1) walking alongside through negotiated dialogues, (2) maintaining human relationships, and (3) maneuvering relationships and services.

conclusionsIt appears that even with the rich knowledgebase that has developed on the merits of collaborative relationships, it continues to be challenging for practitioners to reorient their practice accordingly. The findings of this study indicate that the practitioners focus on two types of processes as characterizing collaborative practice: one focusing on conversations among practitioners and service users and their families and the other focusing on management and control among health care providers, service sectors, and service users (i.e., inter/intra-system collaboration).

Indexed as

Action ResearchCollaborative practicesCommunity mental health careCo-occurring mental health and substance use problemsCooperative InquiryRecoveryShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID25540670
PMCPMC4276107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.