Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35340092›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden-A process evaluation study.

Ulrika Bejerholm, Conny Allaskog, Jessica Andersson, Linda Nordström, David Roe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Turning to Service Users for the Understanding of Current and Future Mental Health Services in the Development Process of Research and Practice: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden-A process evaluation study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.

Ulrika BejerholmDepartment of Health Sciences, Centre of Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions, CEPI, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7505-6955
Conny AllaskogThe Swedish Partnership for Mental Health, NSPH, Skåne, Sweden.
Jessica AnderssonThe Swedish Partnership for Mental Health, NSPH, Skåne, Sweden.
Linda NordströmThe Swedish Partnership for Mental Health, NSPH, Skåne, Sweden.
David RoeDepartment of Health Sciences, Centre of Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions, CEPI, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6197-0989
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvolving service users in inpatient care and recovery planning has gained interest worldwide. Our purpose was to evaluate the process of implementation of a coproduced Recovery Guide (RG) intervention in 22 inpatient wards in Sweden, in terms of context, implementation process and mechanisms of impact over 12 months.

methodsA mixed method design and a process evaluation framework were used to guide data collection and to deductively analyze perspectives and descriptive statistics of delivery from three stakeholder groups.

resultsResults showed that although initial contextual barriers were present (e.g., lack of resources, and interest, uncertainty in the organization, a dominant illness perspective), it was possible to implement the RG in 14 wards, where 53% of admitted service users received the intervention. Legitimacy of the intervention, engaged managers and staff, capacity of staff and ward organization, coproduction and continuous support from user organization were critical mediators. Mechanisms of impact concerned (1) a new perspective on mental health, well-being and recovery, (2) capacity building of a recovery approach in inpatient settings and (3) a meaningful outlet for users' thoughts and feelings on recovery, sharing narratives and influencing care and goals.

conclusionsThe RG intervention has the potential to promote a recovery approach in inpatient mental health services (MHSs). Coproduction among stakeholders created trust and a sustainable implementation that made it possible for wards to resume implementation when contextual barriers had been resolved. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The current study involved stakeholders including a service user organization, the public, first-line managers and staff (including peer support workers) in inpatient and community MHS and researchers, who greatly contributed to the implementation programme, including codesign of the RG intervention as well as coproduction of the implementation in inpatient MHS. All authors have their own lived experiences of mental health problems as a service user or as a relative.

Indexed as

InpatientsMental Health ServicesCounselingHumansMental HealthSwedencoproductionmental healthperson-centredprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35340092
PMCPMC9327815
OpenAlexW4220911650

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.