ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Addressing victimization to enable societal participation in flexible assertive community treatment: A process evaluation of the implementation of a new intervention.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Individuals with severe mental illness experience more victimization and discrimination than other persons in the community. Effective rehabilitation and recovery-oriented care interventions aimed at addressing this issue are lacking. We therefore developed a victimization-informed intervention (accompanied by a training module for professionals) called Materials and methods: A process evaluation was conducted using a mixed-methods design. During the professionals' intervision sessions, we used observations to understand the learning processes ( Results: The observations showed that the trainings were well received. The professionals shared the urgency of paying attention to victimization and discrimination and its harmful effects on participation. They also found the intervention steps to be logical and the intervention protocol easy to use. Nevertheless, they mentioned in the interviews that they had experienced difficulties initiating a conversation about victimization, and if they started one, they did not always follow the steps of the intervention as intended. Few clients said that victimization was placed on the agenda, though those who had discussed victimization with their caregivers expressed their appreciation in the interviews; they felt acknowledged and supported. Discussion: The findings indicate that the intervention was considered helpful in raising awareness and the acknowledgment of victimization. However, professionals remain reluctant to talk about the subject, and the results show they need more practical training in this regard. This process evaluation has an important added value in that it helps us to understand the results of the effect evaluation of the intervention. The findings will facilitate the development and implementation of interventions that address clients' victimization experiences in community mental healthcare settings and subsequently enable their participation in society.
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.