ArticleBMJ open2020
Personal-recovery-oriented community mental healthcare: qualitative evaluation of a developmental project.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMental healthcare is commonly aimed at reducing symptoms in individual service users. When only symptomatic recovery is addressed, not all service users experience sufficient recovery, and when care is aimed only at individuals (instead of the neighbourhood), not all people in need of mental healthcare are reached. This study evaluated a project that aimed to improve mental healthcare in a neighbourhood, by improving healthcare providers' outreach to the residents living in the neighbourhood, by improving collaboration among healthcare providers and focussing on the residents' personal recovery. This project was carried out by several public health services. It aimed to change the goal of mental healthcare provided in the neighbourhood from symptom reduction to personal recovery.
designThe study included qualitative focus groups and inductive content analysis.
settingPrimary and secondary mental healthcare that healthcare workers from different healthcare services provided.
participantsThe evaluation was conducted through three focus group interviews with services users, their friends and relatives, neighbourhood residents, neighbourhood representatives and the healthcare services that were involved (
resultsEvaluation indicated that the most valued part of the project was the utilisation of peer workers at the initiation of mental healthcare. Improved communication among healthcare providers that the project fostered was also highly regarded. The aim of the project to align it with existing initiatives in the neighbourhood was also considered important, although it was difficult to achieve.
conclusionsThe project did not find a panacea for recovery-oriented community mental healthcare. A variety of its components did, however, contribute to the mental health of the community residents.
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.