0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Open Forum   |    
A Review of Consumer Involvement in Evaluations of Case Management: Consistency With a Recovery Paradigm
Sarah L. Marshall, B.Sc.; Trevor P. Crowe, B.Sc., Ph.D.; Lindsay G. Oades, Ph.D.; Frank F. Deane, Dip.Clin.Psych., Ph.D.; David J. Kavanagh, Dip.Clin.Psych., Ph.D.
Psychiatric Services 2007; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.3.396
Abstract

This Open Forum examines research on case management that draws on consumer perspectives. It clarifies the extent of consumer involvement and whether evaluations were informed by recovery perspectives. Searches of three databases revealed 13 studies that sought to investigate consumer perspectives. Only one study asked consumers about experiences of recovery. Most evaluations did not adequately assess consumers' views, and active consumer participation in research was rare. Supporting an individual's recovery requires commitment to a recovery paradigm that incorporates traditional symptom reduction and improved functioning, with broader recovery principles, and a shift in focus from illness to well-being. It also requires greater involvement of consumers in the implementation of case management and ownership of their own recovery process, not just in research that evaluates the practice. (Psychiatric Services 58:396—401, 2007)

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

All authors except for Prof. Kavanagh are affiliated with the Illawarra Institute for Mental Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia (e-mail: sarahmarshall600@hotmail.com). Prof. Kavanagh is with the School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

According to Lilla Watson, as cited in Wadsworth and Epstein (1), "If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you've come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."

Adoption of a consumer perspective on recovery in the delivery of case management services is now widely accepted in policy, and recovery principles increasingly are being incorporated into practice at the level of service delivery. To this extent the "recovery movement" has been a success. However, research that assesses the effectiveness of service models that incorporate a recovery orientation is relatively new. Even though consumer participation is a cornerstone of the recovery movement, it has been extended to the research process in only limited ways. As a result, evaluations run the risk of basing success on criteria that are not central to the concerns of consumers.

This Open Forum presents an argument that consumers' perspectives should hold significant weight in evaluating case management practices and outcomes. In doing so, it does not imply that previous evaluations of mental health case management are without value, nor does it denigrate the importance of medical or rehabilitation-focused outcomes. Rather, our contention is that consumers' voices should be heard equally alongside clinicians' and researchers' (2).

In this Open Forum, recovery refers to "establishment of a fulfilling, meaningful life and a positive sense of identity founded on hopefulness and self determination" (3). Recovery is becoming a visionary concept for guiding mental health service policies in many nations (4,5,6), but researchers have yet to adequately consider its implications for evaluation of case management. Case management is defined broadly in this article as a means of coordinating the care of people in the community with severe mental illness (7). This study was a general investigation of the extent of consumer involvement in service evaluation and focused on recovery concepts across all case management models (including intensive, clinical, strengths based, and assertive community treatment).

Historically, evaluations of case management practices have typically been undertaken within paradigms of outcome research, in which assessments are grounded in a medical model, primarily focusing on functional status, symptoms, or hospital admissions (8,9).

Illness- and disability-focused outcomes retain relevance within a recovery framework. Helping people gain mastery over symptoms and preventing hospitalizations nurture hope for the future and can assist in their pursuit of personal goals (10). However, recovery-oriented approaches adopt a more holistic perspective and incorporate the development of positive mental health, which includes personal goal attainment, presence of meaningful roles, coping, hope, empowerment, and self-esteem (11,12). Closer consideration of illness-focused outcomes is required to provide enhanced meaning from a recovery framework. For example, it may be important to establish whether individuals believe they have gained control over symptoms, rather than focusing entirely or even primarily on the degree of symptom reduction. This perspective raises significant challenges for research design and measurement.

Assessments of outcomes reflecting positive mental health are limited, at best, in existing evaluations. Quality of life has been investigated in some instances (13,14). However, a single measure of quality of life inadequately represents the complexity of an individual's recovery process. Studies sometimes include a measure of client satisfaction (15,16,17). However, the validity of such measures is questionable when consumers are not involved in their development (18,19) and when the measures focus on the extent to which current practices are endorsed and fail to assess dissatisfaction (20). Also, these measures by themselves do not address issues of recovery. With these deficiencies in mind, Liberman and colleagues (21) have provided an operational or outcome-based definition of recovery that requires assessments of outcomes in dimensions of symptomatology, vocational functioning, independent living, and social relationships. Clearly, their definition moved the research beyond an illness focus and includes outcome domains that consumers have often identified as important, making it potentially useful in outcome evaluations.

We examined research on case management that draws on consumer perspectives. This review clarifies the extent of consumer involvement and whether evaluations were informed by recovery perspectives. Searches of Ovid Medline (1966—2006), PsycINFO (1967—2006), and Cinahl (1982—2006) databases were conducted with combinations of the following terms: assertive community treatment, case management, assertive outreach, strengths model, rehabilitation model, ICM and intensive case management, client perspectives, participant perspectives, service users, consumer priorities, and client attitudes. Additional searches used terms from identified articles, and we checked their reference lists to locate other articles. The search focused on articles that report on studies explicitly aimed to capture consumer perspectives. Evaluations that incorporated only satisfaction ratings or similar methodologies were not included in the primary analyses because of the limited extent to which they can offer a consumer perspective. Studies were assessed with the consumer involvement criteria summarized in Table 1.

The search identified the 13 studies listed in Table 1 (22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34). Studies are ordered chronologically by year and then according to the total number of consumer criteria, indicated by checkmarks, that were met. A companion paper (35) to McGrew and colleagues' papers (23,29) surveyed clinicians' perspectives and was taken into account when providing checkmarks. Nine of the studies focused on evaluations of assertive community treatment, which is not surprising given the popularity of this model (36). Key observations are summarized below.

In one study, Chinman and associates (25) interviewed three clients of an assertive community treatment program and their clinicians to identify features of the program that appeared to help or hinder recovery. Clinicians described their attempts to persuade one client to cease drinking. The client stated that drinking provided a way for her to express anger about the team's perceived overinvolvement in her life, confiding that she decided to address her drinking only when she established trust with a staff member who showed interest in her as a person "beyond her illness." This tactic is consistent with the recovery literature, where trust and well-being are emphasized (11). Even though results need to be replicated in larger research studies, this article illustrates how consideration of multiple perspectives can enhance understanding of consumer and case manager interactions and better facilitate recovery.

Only two studies involved consumers extensively throughout the research process (31,33), and another involved consumers only in data collection (32). None of the reviewed studies provided direct evidence on whether the involvement of consumers in research has an impact on findings. However, researchers have suggested that collaborating with consumers in the design phase may help to ensure that areas of importance to them are addressed (37). Consumers also may provide more honest, and perhaps even negative, responses when data are collected by peers rather than staff or researchers (29,38,39). Therefore, consumers' involvement in data analysis may help ensure that the meaning of results is correctly interpreted (31,37,40).

Benefits of enhanced validity from consumer participation in data collection are now starting to be recognized in general medicine (41,42). For instance, systematic reviews of electroconvulsive therapy have shown that compared with clinician-led studies, consumer-led studies show lower rates of perceived benefit (43). There is a need to systematically assess the impact of consumer involvement on the nature and validity of case management evaluations.

All of the studies included in Table 1 had some form of qualitative assessment, providing a rich source of information, including dissatisfaction. In a study by Redko and colleagues (32), consumers answered open-ended questions about what they liked best and least and what they would change; they also completed a satisfaction scale. Open-ended questions allowed consumers to express satisfaction and dissatisfaction about the quality of relationships with case managers and the degree of involvement in their own treatment. Consumers expressed concern over high staff turnover, reporting that it interfered with effective care and relationship quality.

McGrew and colleagues (29) used open-ended questions to assess what consumers liked least about assertive community treatment. Some consumers reported that practices were too paternalistic and overly focused on medications. Krupa and colleagues (33) undertook a participatory action study in collaboration with consumers, reporting results from focus groups with 52 consumers. Consumers highlighted continuity of service provision and 24-hour support as key reasons for positive change. Relationships described as "helpful" were caring, collaborative, built trust, and conveyed belief in clients' potential. Examples included case workers who collaborated in goal setting, encouraged active contribution to their community, helped consumers identify opportunities for growth, addressed poverty, and met everyday needs. Consumers emphasized development of self-reliance and independence and active pursuit of well-being. In contrast, areas of dissatisfaction included a low emphasis on work, education, and training; authoritative or controlling relationships; and excessive focus on weaknesses rather than strengths.

The wide range of observations in these studies may not have been revealed without the opportunity for responses to emerge from open-ended questioning. Qualitative studies by their very nature are concerned with meaning, especially the subjective understandings of participants, and allow for the identification of emergent categories and themes because they do not solely rely on a priori concepts and ideas (44). Creating opportunities for comment about unhelpful as well as helpful aspects is particularly important, because doing so highlights areas that may be critical to service improvement. Open-ended questions do not, of course, guarantee either an adequate representation of consumers' views or embodiment of a recovery perspective. The nature of a question carries assumptions about the importance of the targeted issue to consumers. However, closed-ended questions assume that the key response options have been captured. Such an assumption is particularly risky when professionals generate questions and consumers have little or no say in question selection (45). Although we recognize that issues relating to consumer participation and qualitative methodology are far more complex than differences between closed- and open-ended questions, this example illustrates the importance of appropriate methodology when evaluating case management from a consumer or recovery perspective.

Data obtained from focus groups, open-ended survey questions, or other qualitative methodologies offer greater opportunity for consumers to emphasize issues of perceived importance for their individual recovery (46). Several recovery-related issues are raised by the responses in the studies discussed above, even though questions were not specifically focused on recovery. For example, the quality of the therapeutic relationship—an issue raised in the study by Redko and colleagues (32)—is seen as a key factor in facilitating recovery (11,47,48). A perception that staff turnover is high raises a recovery issue. Whereas continuity, one-on-one relationships, and staff availability are thought to assist recovery, discontinuity, such as turnover, hinders it (11,49). The Redko study (32) revealed perceptions of paternalism and an excessive focus on medication, which indicate characteristics that appear to hinder recovery (11,50). Characteristics of helpful relationships and positive features of assertive community treatment that were identified by consumers in the study by Krupa and colleagues (33) map onto features that are seen as facilitating recovery—for example, development of personal control, meaningful activities, and a focus on the person beyond the illness (11,47,51). Similarly, areas that consumers identified as dissatisfying, such as a low emphasis on work, education, and training and an excessive focus on weaknesses rather than strengths, have been recognized as hindrances to recovery (11).

Although evidence of case management effectiveness is accumulating, little research identifies active "ingredients" or processes, thus limiting the mental health community's ability to drive improved practices (44). Qualitative methods offer unique opportunities to sample processes that consumers see as important to success (52,53), and quantitative research can be significantly enriched by the addition of qualitative data (54,55). Hypotheses derived from qualitative assessment can then be tested in further research. If key processes are identified, the impact of case management can be maximized and effective strategies more easily generalized to new settings (53). Opportunities to learn about processes contributing to change were evident in the qualitative studies identified in this review (25,28,33).

This section highlights some possible ways in which researchers may align future evaluations of case management with recovery visions for service delivery. Qualitative research methods are expected to have an increasing role in future evaluations of case management, particularly as increasing emphasis is placed on participatory approaches and service improvement in addition to (or instead of) more traditional outcome designs. Decisions concerning methodological approaches, such as undertaking pure outcome-based research, entail assumptions about whether recovery is best conceptualized primarily as an outcome or as a process. Logically, it must be both process and outcome. Where possible, the preferable approach may be to consider methodological designs that attempt to capture potential outcome indicators of recovery supplemented with process data. Research design decisions should be made in collaboration with consumers.

Over time, evaluation research has been reconceptualized away from more traditional summative evaluation focusing on outcomes, or overall value of programs, toward formative evaluation. Formative evaluation, in contrast to summative evaluation, focuses more on process to adjust or inform the improved conduct of a program (56). Several authors have emphasized the essential role that consumers must play in driving improved mental health services (57,58). Participatory approaches to evaluation are important within a recovery framework for many reasons, perhaps primarily to honor and respect the knowledge and lived experience that come from recovering from a mental illness. Qualitative methods of inquiry by their very nature are highly appropriate for studying processes, which are central to program improvement and are also accessible to the lay person, making them particularly suitable for participatory means of inquiry (44). Furthermore, consumers most commonly view recovery as a process instead of an outcome (59).

More specifically we recommend that researchers consider the potential benefits of forming partnerships with consumers extensively, throughout the evaluation process. Practical examples of successful participatory projects are available, as well as guidance on issues such as providing training and support for individuals (1,31,37,40). Empowerment evaluation and participatory action research may be particularly relevant means of inquiry within this context, with an emphasis on breaking down the power relationship between the researcher and the researchee as well as on improving services (60,61,62,63). Empowerment evaluation involves the use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to support improvement and self-determination among participants (64). Traditionally used within the context of program evaluation, empowerment evaluation has also been applied to organizations, communities, societies, cultures, and individuals (65). Participatory action research has been described as a form of applied research that actively encourages people in the organization or community under investigation to participate with professional researchers throughout the entire research process, from problem formulation to the application and assessment of results (66,67).

When planning the design of evaluations, it may be helpful to discuss two broad research questions: How do case management practices support or hinder individuals' recovery processes? How might case management practices be improved to better support individuals' recovery processes?

When undertaking outcome evaluations of case management, researchers should discuss with consumers and professionals at initial stages of research design the relevance of both traditional symptom- or function-based assessments and recovery-related measures. Researchers could use key recovery concepts, such as hope, personal goal attainment, and empowerment (3,11,12), to assist in selection of outcome measures. Examples of scales that attempt to measure these concepts are the Hope Scale (68) and the Consumer Empowerment Scale (69). Items from these measures, respectively, include "I can think of ways to get things in life that are most important to me" and "People have a right to make their own decisions, even if they are bad ones."

If case management practices are to support individuals toward recovery, it is clear that assisting consumers in areas such as identifying and reaching valued directions in life, as well as having a say in decisions and taking risks, are likely to be important. Collaborative goal technology (70) is a recent adaptation of goal attainment scaling (71), which is a goal-striving intervention developed specifically to support the recovery and autonomy of people with mental illness. The overall goal index from collaborative goal technology could be a useful outcome indicator within case management settings. Repeated administration of measures such as the Recovery Assessment Scale (72) may provide an indication of an individual's progress through recovery over time. Alternatively, Liberman and colleagues (21) have provided an operational, outcome-based definition of recovery (discussed above), which could be useful as part of outcome evaluations. Recovery concepts could also guide the development of research questions for interviews or focus-group discussions when evaluating case management practices with consumers and other stakeholders.

In summary, evaluations of case management are incomplete unless they provide opportunities for consumers to comment on and be actively involved in the improvement of services that they receive. Fundamental changes to case management evaluations need to be more substantial than simply expanding or adjusting evaluative measures. Asking consumers what they think about services they receive and including a recovery measure are not enough to adapt case management practices to more comprehensively and authentically reflect recovery principles. Greater involvement of consumers in the implementation of case management and ownership of their own recovery process is needed, not just involvement in research that evaluates existing case management practice.

This review was part of the Australian Integrated Mental Health Initiative—High Support Stream Project, which was supported by Strategic Partnership grant 219327 from the National Mental Health and Medical Research Council.

The authors report no competing interests.

Wadsworth Y, Epstein M (eds): The Essential U & I, vol 1. Victoria, Australia, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2001
 
Liberati A: Consumer participation in research and health care. British Medical Journal 315:499, 1997
 
Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P: The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically validated stage model. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 37:586—594, 2003
 
Australian Health Ministers: National Mental Health Plan 2003—2008. Canberra, Australian Government, 2003
 
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, Md, Department of Health and Human Services, President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
 
Blueprint for Mental Health Services in New Zealand: How Things Need to Be. Wellington, New Zealand, Mental Health Commission, 1998
 
Marshall M, Gray A, Lockwood M, et al: Case management for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2:CD000050, 1998
 
Hambridge J, Rosen A: Assertive community treatment for the seriously mentally ill in suburban Sydney: a programme description and evaluation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 28:438—445, 1994
 
Issakidis C, Sanderson K, Teesson M, et al: Intensive case management in Australia: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 99:360—367, 1999
 
Mueser KT, Corrigan PW, Hilton DW, et al: Illness management and recovery: a review of the research. Psychiatric Services 53:1272—1284, 2002
 
Onken S, Dumont J, Ridgway P, et al: Mental Health Recovery: What Helps What Hinders? A National Research Project for the Development of Recovery Facilitating System Performance Indicators. Alexandria, Va, National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning and the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 2002
 
Lakeman R: Standardized routine outcome measurement: pot holes in the road to recovery. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13:210—215, 2004
 
Gorey KM, Leslie DR, Morris T, et al: Effectiveness of case management with severely and persistently mentally ill people. Community Mental Health Journal 34:241—250, 1998
 
Ziguras SJ, Stuart GW: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mental health case management over 20 years. Psychiatric Services 51:1410—1421, 2000
 
Bond GR, Witheridge TF, Dincin J, et al: Assertive community treatment for frequent users of psychiatric hospitals in a large city: a controlled study. American Journal of Community Psychology 18:865—891, 1990
 
Holloway F, Carson J: Intensive case management for the severely mentally ill: controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 172:19—22, 1998
 
Lafave HG, De Souza HR, Gerber GJ: Assertive community treatment of severe mental illness: a Canadian experience. Psychiatric Services 47:757—759, 1996
 
Campbell J: How consumers/survivors are evaluating the quality of psychiatric care. Evaluation Review 21:357—363, 1997
 
Lovell K: User satisfaction with in-patient mental health services. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 2:143—150, 1995
 
Stallard P: The role and use of consumer satisfaction surveys in mental health services. Journal of Mental Health 5:333—348, 1996
 
Liberman RP, Kopelowicz A, Ventura J, et al: Operational criteria and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. International Review of Psychiatry 14:256—272, 2002
 
Kisthardt W: An empowerment agenda for case management research: evaluating the strengths model from the consumers' perspective, in Case Management: Theory and Practice. Edited by Harris M, Bergman H. Washington DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1993
 
McGrew JH, Wilson RG, Bond GR: Client perspectives on helpful ingredients of assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 19:13—21, 1996
 
Cullen D, Waite A, Oliver N, et al: Case management for the mentally ill: a comparative evaluation of client satisfaction. Health and Social Care in the Community 5:106—115, 1997
 
Chinman M, Allende M, Bailey P, et al: Therapeutic agents of assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly 70:137—162, 1999
 
Prince PN, Damidenko N, Gerber GJ: Client and staff members' perceptions of assertive community treatment: the nominal groups technique. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 23:285—288, 2000
 
Geanellos R, Fry A, Pearce H, et al: The experience of community mental health case management provided from an acute in-patient psychiatric unit. International Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research 7:815—832, 2001
 
O'Brien L: The relationship between community psychiatric nurses and clients with severe and persistent mental illness: the client's experience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Mental Health Nursing 10:176—186, 2001
 
McGrew JH, Wilson RG, Bond GR: An exploratory study of what clients like least about assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Services 53:761—763, 2002
 
Watts J, Priebe S: A phenomenological account of users' experiences of assertive community treatment. Bioethics 16:439—454, 2002
 
Allam S, Blyth S, Fraser A, et al: Our experience of collaborative research: service users, carers and researchers work together to evaluate an assertive outreach service. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 11:368—373, 2004
 
Redko C, Durbin J, Wasylenki D, et al: Participant perspectives on satisfaction with assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 27:283—286, 2004
 
Krupa T, Eastabrook S, Hern L, et al: How do people who receive assertive community treatment experience this service? Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 29:18—24, 2005
 
Leiphart L, Barnes M: The client experience of assertive community treatment: a qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 28:395—397, 2005
 
McGrew JH, Bond GR, Dietzen LL, et al: A multi-site study of client outcomes in assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Services 46:696—701, 1995
 
Mueser KT, Corrigan PW, Hilton DW, et al: Illness management and recovery: a review of the research. Psychiatric Services 53:1272—1284, 2002
 
Linhorst DM, Eckert A: Involving people with severe mental illness in evaluation and performance improvement. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25:284—301, 2002
 
Gill KJ, Pratt CW, Librera LA: The effects of consumer vs staff administration on the measurement of consumer satisfaction with psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 21:364—370, 1998
 
Morrell-Bellai TL, Boydell KM: The experience of mental health consumers as researchers. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 13:97—110, 1994
 
Oades L, Viney L, Malins G, et al: Consumer evaluation of mental health services: the process and products. Newparadigm—The Australian Journal on Psychosocial Rehabilitation March:34—47, 2005
 
Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, et al: Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research. British Medical Journal 325:766—770, 2002
 
Koops L, Lindley RI: Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 325:415—417, 2002
 
Rose D, Wykes T, Leese M, et al: Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. British Medical Journal 326:1363—1368, 2003
 
Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage, 2002
 
Elbeck M, Fecteau G: Improving the validity of measures of patient satisfaction with psychiatric care and treatment. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 41:998—1001, 1990
 
Carrick R, Mitchell A, Lloyd K: User involvement in research: power and compromise. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 11:217—225, 2001
 
Tooth BA, Kalyanasundaram D, Glover H: Recovery From Schizophrenia: A Consumer Perspective. Brisbane, Australia, Queensland University of Technology, 1997
 
Torgalsboen AK: Consumer satisfaction and attributions of improvement among fully recovered schizophrenics. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 42:33—40, 2001
 
Smith MK: Recovery from a severe psychiatric disability: findings of a qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24:149—158, 2000
 
Young S, Ensing D: Exploring recovery from the perspective of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 22:219—231, 1999
 
Sullivan W: A long and winding road: the process of recovery from mental illness. Innovations and Research 3:19—27, 1994
 
Anthony W, Rogers E, Farkas M: Research on evidence-based practices: future directions in an era of recovery. Community Mental Health Journal 39:101—114, 2003
 
Wykes T: Blue skies in the Journal of Mental Health? Consumers in research. Journal of Mental Health 12:1—6, 2003
 
Rogers A, Day J, Randall F, et al: Patients' understanding and participation in a trial designed to improve the management of anti-psychotic medication: a qualitative study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38:720—727, 2003
 
Mason S, Tovey P, Long A: Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological outcome challenges of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 325:832—834, 2002
 
Favilla A, Goh J, McDermott F, et al: Evaluation and the concept of quality in mental healthcare delivery, in Mental Health in Australia: Collaborative Community Practice, 2nd ed. Edited by Meadows G, Singh B, Grigg M. Victoria, Australia, Oxford University Press, 2006
 
Salyers MP, Macy VR: Recovery-oriented evidence-based practices: a commentary. Community Mental Health Journal 41: 101—103, 2005
 
Torrey WC, Rapp CA, Van Tosh L, et al: Recovery principles and evidence-based practice: essential ingredients of service improvement. Community Mental Health Journal 41:91—100, 2005
 
Ralph RO, Corrigan PW: Recovery in Mental Illness—Broadening Our Understanding of Wellness. Washington DC, American Psychological Association, 2005
 
O'Brien L, Cole R: Mental health nursing practice in acute psychiatric close-observation areas. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13:89—99, 2004
 
Ochocka J, Janzen R, Nelson G: Sharing power and knowledge: professional and mental health consumer/survivor researchers working together in a participatory action research project. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24:379—387, 2002
 
Fetterman D: Steps of empowerment evaluation: from California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning 17:305—313, 1994
 
Fetterman D, Kaftarian S, Wandersman A: Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage, 1996
 
Fetterman D: Empowerment evaluation and self-determination: a practical approach toward program improvement and capacity building, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers M, Silva J, et al. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2001
 
Fetterman DM: Empowerment evaluation: building communities of practice and a culture of learning. American Journal of Community Psychology 30:89—102, 2002
 
Greenwood DJ, Whyte WF, Harkavy I: Participatory action research as a process and a goal. Human Relations 46:175—192, 1993
 
Whyte WF: Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, Calif, Sage, 1991
 
Snyder CR, Harris C, Anderson JR, et al: The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:570—585, 1991
 
Rogers E, Chamberlin J, Ellison ML, et al: A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatric Services 48:1042—1047, 1997
 
Clarke SP, Oades LG, Crowe TP, et al: Collaborative goal technology: theory and practice. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 30:129—136, 2006
 
Kiresuk TJ, Smith A, Cardillo JE: Goal Attainment Scaling: Applications, Theory, and Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1994
 
Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, et al: Construction of a Scale to Measure Consumer Recovery. Springfield, Illinois Office of Mental Health, 1995
 
Table 1  Studies of consumer evaluations of case management from a recovery framework published between 1993 and 2005
Table 1  Studies of consumer evaluations of case management from a recovery framework published between 1993 and 2005
+

References

Wadsworth Y, Epstein M (eds): The Essential U & I, vol 1. Victoria, Australia, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2001
 
Liberati A: Consumer participation in research and health care. British Medical Journal 315:499, 1997
 
Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P: The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically validated stage model. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 37:586—594, 2003
 
Australian Health Ministers: National Mental Health Plan 2003—2008. Canberra, Australian Government, 2003
 
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, Md, Department of Health and Human Services, President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
 
Blueprint for Mental Health Services in New Zealand: How Things Need to Be. Wellington, New Zealand, Mental Health Commission, 1998
 
Marshall M, Gray A, Lockwood M, et al: Case management for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2:CD000050, 1998
 
Hambridge J, Rosen A: Assertive community treatment for the seriously mentally ill in suburban Sydney: a programme description and evaluation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 28:438—445, 1994
 
Issakidis C, Sanderson K, Teesson M, et al: Intensive case management in Australia: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 99:360—367, 1999
 
Mueser KT, Corrigan PW, Hilton DW, et al: Illness management and recovery: a review of the research. Psychiatric Services 53:1272—1284, 2002
 
Onken S, Dumont J, Ridgway P, et al: Mental Health Recovery: What Helps What Hinders? A National Research Project for the Development of Recovery Facilitating System Performance Indicators. Alexandria, Va, National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning and the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 2002
 
Lakeman R: Standardized routine outcome measurement: pot holes in the road to recovery. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13:210—215, 2004
 
Gorey KM, Leslie DR, Morris T, et al: Effectiveness of case management with severely and persistently mentally ill people. Community Mental Health Journal 34:241—250, 1998
 
Ziguras SJ, Stuart GW: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mental health case management over 20 years. Psychiatric Services 51:1410—1421, 2000
 
Bond GR, Witheridge TF, Dincin J, et al: Assertive community treatment for frequent users of psychiatric hospitals in a large city: a controlled study. American Journal of Community Psychology 18:865—891, 1990
 
Holloway F, Carson J: Intensive case management for the severely mentally ill: controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 172:19—22, 1998
 
Lafave HG, De Souza HR, Gerber GJ: Assertive community treatment of severe mental illness: a Canadian experience. Psychiatric Services 47:757—759, 1996
 
Campbell J: How consumers/survivors are evaluating the quality of psychiatric care. Evaluation Review 21:357—363, 1997
 
Lovell K: User satisfaction with in-patient mental health services. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 2:143—150, 1995
 
Stallard P: The role and use of consumer satisfaction surveys in mental health services. Journal of Mental Health 5:333—348, 1996
 
Liberman RP, Kopelowicz A, Ventura J, et al: Operational criteria and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. International Review of Psychiatry 14:256—272, 2002
 
Kisthardt W: An empowerment agenda for case management research: evaluating the strengths model from the consumers' perspective, in Case Management: Theory and Practice. Edited by Harris M, Bergman H. Washington DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1993
 
McGrew JH, Wilson RG, Bond GR: Client perspectives on helpful ingredients of assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 19:13—21, 1996
 
Cullen D, Waite A, Oliver N, et al: Case management for the mentally ill: a comparative evaluation of client satisfaction. Health and Social Care in the Community 5:106—115, 1997
 
Chinman M, Allende M, Bailey P, et al: Therapeutic agents of assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly 70:137—162, 1999
 
Prince PN, Damidenko N, Gerber GJ: Client and staff members' perceptions of assertive community treatment: the nominal groups technique. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 23:285—288, 2000
 
Geanellos R, Fry A, Pearce H, et al: The experience of community mental health case management provided from an acute in-patient psychiatric unit. International Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research 7:815—832, 2001
 
O'Brien L: The relationship between community psychiatric nurses and clients with severe and persistent mental illness: the client's experience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Mental Health Nursing 10:176—186, 2001
 
McGrew JH, Wilson RG, Bond GR: An exploratory study of what clients like least about assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Services 53:761—763, 2002
 
Watts J, Priebe S: A phenomenological account of users' experiences of assertive community treatment. Bioethics 16:439—454, 2002
 
Allam S, Blyth S, Fraser A, et al: Our experience of collaborative research: service users, carers and researchers work together to evaluate an assertive outreach service. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 11:368—373, 2004
 
Redko C, Durbin J, Wasylenki D, et al: Participant perspectives on satisfaction with assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 27:283—286, 2004
 
Krupa T, Eastabrook S, Hern L, et al: How do people who receive assertive community treatment experience this service? Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 29:18—24, 2005
 
Leiphart L, Barnes M: The client experience of assertive community treatment: a qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 28:395—397, 2005
 
McGrew JH, Bond GR, Dietzen LL, et al: A multi-site study of client outcomes in assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Services 46:696—701, 1995
 
Mueser KT, Corrigan PW, Hilton DW, et al: Illness management and recovery: a review of the research. Psychiatric Services 53:1272—1284, 2002
 
Linhorst DM, Eckert A: Involving people with severe mental illness in evaluation and performance improvement. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25:284—301, 2002
 
Gill KJ, Pratt CW, Librera LA: The effects of consumer vs staff administration on the measurement of consumer satisfaction with psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 21:364—370, 1998
 
Morrell-Bellai TL, Boydell KM: The experience of mental health consumers as researchers. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 13:97—110, 1994
 
Oades L, Viney L, Malins G, et al: Consumer evaluation of mental health services: the process and products. Newparadigm—The Australian Journal on Psychosocial Rehabilitation March:34—47, 2005
 
Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, et al: Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research. British Medical Journal 325:766—770, 2002
 
Koops L, Lindley RI: Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 325:415—417, 2002
 
Rose D, Wykes T, Leese M, et al: Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. British Medical Journal 326:1363—1368, 2003
 
Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage, 2002
 
Elbeck M, Fecteau G: Improving the validity of measures of patient satisfaction with psychiatric care and treatment. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 41:998—1001, 1990
 
Carrick R, Mitchell A, Lloyd K: User involvement in research: power and compromise. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 11:217—225, 2001
 
Tooth BA, Kalyanasundaram D, Glover H: Recovery From Schizophrenia: A Consumer Perspective. Brisbane, Australia, Queensland University of Technology, 1997
 
Torgalsboen AK: Consumer satisfaction and attributions of improvement among fully recovered schizophrenics. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 42:33—40, 2001
 
Smith MK: Recovery from a severe psychiatric disability: findings of a qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24:149—158, 2000
 
Young S, Ensing D: Exploring recovery from the perspective of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 22:219—231, 1999
 
Sullivan W: A long and winding road: the process of recovery from mental illness. Innovations and Research 3:19—27, 1994
 
Anthony W, Rogers E, Farkas M: Research on evidence-based practices: future directions in an era of recovery. Community Mental Health Journal 39:101—114, 2003
 
Wykes T: Blue skies in the Journal of Mental Health? Consumers in research. Journal of Mental Health 12:1—6, 2003
 
Rogers A, Day J, Randall F, et al: Patients' understanding and participation in a trial designed to improve the management of anti-psychotic medication: a qualitative study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38:720—727, 2003
 
Mason S, Tovey P, Long A: Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological outcome challenges of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 325:832—834, 2002
 
Favilla A, Goh J, McDermott F, et al: Evaluation and the concept of quality in mental healthcare delivery, in Mental Health in Australia: Collaborative Community Practice, 2nd ed. Edited by Meadows G, Singh B, Grigg M. Victoria, Australia, Oxford University Press, 2006
 
Salyers MP, Macy VR: Recovery-oriented evidence-based practices: a commentary. Community Mental Health Journal 41: 101—103, 2005
 
Torrey WC, Rapp CA, Van Tosh L, et al: Recovery principles and evidence-based practice: essential ingredients of service improvement. Community Mental Health Journal 41:91—100, 2005
 
Ralph RO, Corrigan PW: Recovery in Mental Illness—Broadening Our Understanding of Wellness. Washington DC, American Psychological Association, 2005
 
O'Brien L, Cole R: Mental health nursing practice in acute psychiatric close-observation areas. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13:89—99, 2004
 
Ochocka J, Janzen R, Nelson G: Sharing power and knowledge: professional and mental health consumer/survivor researchers working together in a participatory action research project. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24:379—387, 2002
 
Fetterman D: Steps of empowerment evaluation: from California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning 17:305—313, 1994
 
Fetterman D, Kaftarian S, Wandersman A: Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage, 1996
 
Fetterman D: Empowerment evaluation and self-determination: a practical approach toward program improvement and capacity building, in Integrating Behavioral and Social Sciences With Public Health. Edited by Schneiderman N, Speers M, Silva J, et al. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2001
 
Fetterman DM: Empowerment evaluation: building communities of practice and a culture of learning. American Journal of Community Psychology 30:89—102, 2002
 
Greenwood DJ, Whyte WF, Harkavy I: Participatory action research as a process and a goal. Human Relations 46:175—192, 1993
 
Whyte WF: Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, Calif, Sage, 1991
 
Snyder CR, Harris C, Anderson JR, et al: The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:570—585, 1991
 
Rogers E, Chamberlin J, Ellison ML, et al: A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatric Services 48:1042—1047, 1997
 
Clarke SP, Oades LG, Crowe TP, et al: Collaborative goal technology: theory and practice. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 30:129—136, 2006
 
Kiresuk TJ, Smith A, Cardillo JE: Goal Attainment Scaling: Applications, Theory, and Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1994
 
Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, et al: Construction of a Scale to Measure Consumer Recovery. Springfield, Illinois Office of Mental Health, 1995
 
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

Related Content
Articles
Books
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 27.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 27.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment, 4th Edition > Chapter 33.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles
Case management: developing practice through action research. Br J Community Nurs 2013;18(9):452-4, 456-8.
Engaging the patient in diabetes self-management. J Fam Pract 2013;62(12 Suppl CME):S20-6.