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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Implementing an intervention designed to enhance service user involvement in mental health care planning: a qualitative process evaluation.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Wearable technology for athletes: material innovations, performance monitoring, and emerging paradigms.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- SENSE-Cog Residential Care: hearing and vision support for residents with dementia in long-term care in Ireland-protocol for a pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in assessment and management of risk: A qualitative interview study with people using mental health services.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Article
- Empowerment training to support service user involvement in mental health system strengthening in rural Ethiopia: a mixed-methods pilot study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Co-production in health policy and management: a comprehensive bibliometric review.BMC health services research · 2020Review
- Implementing a Digital Tool to Support Shared Care Planning in Community-Based Mental Health Services: Qualitative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- A protocol to evaluate the impact of involvement of older people with dementia and age-related hearing and/or vision impairment in a multi-site European research study.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.