Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden—A process evaluation study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden—A process evaluation study
Do you wish to request the book?
Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden—A process evaluation study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Implementation of the Recovery Guide in inpatient mental health services in Sweden—A process evaluation study
2022
Overview
Background Involving 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. Methods A 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. Results Results 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. Conclusions The 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.
