Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28218977›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatric and mental health nursing2017

Evaluation of a co-delivered training package for community mental health professionals on service user- and carer-involved care planning.

A C Grundy, L Walker, O Meade, C Fraser, L Cree, P Bee, K Lovell, P Callaghan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Evaluation of a 'Research Methods' Training Course for Novice Lived Experience Researchers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation of a research awareness training programme to support research involvement of older people with dementia and their care partners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

A C GrundySchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6562-6894
L WalkerHealth Sciences Research, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
O MeadeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
C FraserHealth Sciences Research, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3684-3168
L CreeHealth Sciences Research, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
P BeeHealth Sciences Research, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
K LovellHealth Sciences Research, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
P CallaghanMental Health Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1210-12007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is consistent evidence that service users and carers feel marginalized in the process of mental health care planning. Mental health professionals have identified ongoing training needs in relation to involving service users and carers in care planning. There is limited research on the acceptability of training packages for mental health professionals which involve service users and carers as co-facilitators. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: A co-produced and co-delivered training package on service user- and carer-involved care planning was acceptable to mental health professionals. Aspects of the training that were particularly valued were the co-production model, small group discussion and the opportunity for reflective practice. The organizational context of care planning may need more consideration in future training models. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Mental health nurses using co-production models of delivering training to other mental health professionals can be confident that such initiatives will be warmly welcomed, acceptable and engaging. On the basis of the results reported here, we encourage mental health nurses to use co-production approaches more often. Further research will show how clinically effective this training is in improving outcomes for service users and carers. ABSTRACT: Background There is limited evidence for the acceptability of training for mental health professionals on service user- and carer-involved care planning. Aim To investigate the acceptability of a co-delivered, two-day training intervention on service user- and carer-involved care planning. Methods Community mental health professionals were invited to complete the Training Acceptability Rating Scale post-training. Responses to the quantitative items were summarized using descriptive statistics (Miles, ), and qualitative responses were coded using content analysis (Weber, ). Results Of 350 trainees, 310 completed the questionnaire. The trainees rated the training favourably (median overall TARS scores = 56/63; median 'acceptability' score = 34/36; median 'perceived impact' score = 22/27). There were six qualitative themes: the value of the co-production model; time to reflect on practice; delivery preferences; comprehensiveness of content; need to consider organizational context; and emotional response. Discussion The training was found to be acceptable and comprehensive with participants valuing the co-production model. Individual differences were apparent in terms of delivery preferences and emotional reactions. There may be a need to further address the organizational context of care planning in future training. Implications for practice Mental health nurses should use co-production models of continuing professional development training that involve service users and carers as co-facilitators.

Indexed as

CaregiversCommunity Mental Health ServicesPatient Care PlanningAdultHealth PersonnelHumansMental Disordersnursing educationpractice developmentuser involvement

Identifiers

PMID28218977
PMCPMC5574013

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.