ArticlePsychiatric rehabilitation journal2020
Implementing illness management and recovery within assertive community treatment teams: A qualitative study.
Article in Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Statewide implementation of high-fidelity recovery-oriented ACT: A case study.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study purpose was to assess the feasibility, advantages/disadvantages, and factors that hinder or facilitate the implementation of illness management and recovery (IMR) within assertive community treatment (ACT) teams.
methodA qualitative study was conducted with 11 ACT teams that implemented IMR. We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 17 persons enrolled in services and 55 ACT staff in individual and focus groups. Questions were designed to assess perceptions of IMR implementation, effects of IMR, staff training considerations, and recommendations. Data were analyzed using an inductive, consensus-building, thematic analysis, which included multiple research staff reviewing interview transcripts and field notes, developing and refining a codebook, constructing data summaries, and thematic synthesis.
resultsThe analysis revealed six major themes: (a) a generally positive fit exists between the two models and population served, (b) both people with serious mental illness and staff benefited from ACT + IMR, (c) ACT teams encountered significant implementation barriers, (d) relationships and engagement with participants facilitated implementation, (e) taking a flexible approach to IMR and ACT improved implementation, and (f) programs should focus on greater integration of IMR within ACT teams. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: While there can be barriers to implementing IMR within ACT teams, there is generally a positive fit, it is feasible to implement, and it offers meaningful benefits. ACT teams should improve their recovery orientation by more widespread implementation of IMR. Future research on ACT + IMR should include mixed-methods approaches, implementation methodologies to identify barriers and facilitators, and idiographic measures that capture the individualized recovery goals of people with serious mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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.