Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27365099›Full record

ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2016

Service user experiences of REFOCUS: a process evaluation of a pro-recovery complex intervention.

Genevieve Wallace, Victoria Bird, Mary Leamy, Faye Bacon, Clair Le Boutillier, Monika Janosik, Rob MacPherson, Julie Williams, Mike Slade

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Recovery-oriented mental health training interventions: An integrative review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Genevieve WallaceHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Victoria BirdWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, London, E13 8SP, UK. v.j.bird@qmul.ac.uk.
Mary LeamyHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Faye BaconHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Clair Le BoutillierHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Monika JanosikHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Rob MacPherson2gether NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, UK.
Julie WilliamsHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Mike SladeInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePolicy is increasingly focused on implementing a recovery-orientation within mental health services, yet the subjective experience of individuals receiving a pro-recovery intervention is under-studied. The aim of this study was to explore the service user experience of receiving a complex, pro-recovery intervention (REFOCUS), which aimed to encourage the use of recovery-supporting tools and support recovery-promoting relationships.

methodsInterviews (n = 24) and two focus groups (n = 13) were conducted as part of a process evaluation and included a purposive sample of service users who received the complex, pro-recovery intervention within the REFOCUS randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN02507940). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

resultsParticipants reported that the intervention supported the development of an open and collaborative relationship with staff, with new conversations around values, strengths and goals. This was experienced as hope-inspiring and empowering. However, others described how the recovery tools were used without context, meaning participants were unclear of their purpose and did not see their benefit. During the interviews, some individuals struggled to report any new tasks or conversations occurring during the intervention.

conclusionRecovery-supporting tools can support the development of a recovery-promoting relationship, which can contribute to positive outcomes for individuals. The tools should be used in a collaborative and flexible manner. Information exchanged around values, strengths and goals should be used in care-planning. As some service users struggled to report their experience of the intervention, alternative evaluation approaches need to be considered if the service user experience is to be fully captured.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthProcess Assessment, Health CarePsychiatric RehabilitationAdultAnxiety DisordersBipolar DisorderDepressive DisorderFemaleFocus GroupsHopeHumansMaleMental DisordersMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationComplex interventionHealth service and population researchProcess evaluationRecovery

Identifiers

PMID27365099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.