4.2 Article

Mental Health Consumers and Providers Dialogue in an Institutional Setting: A Participatory Approach to Promoting Recovery-Oriented Care

Journal

PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION JOURNAL
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 113-115

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/h0094980

Keywords

participatory action research; recovery-oriented care; system transformation; consumer-centered services

Funding

  1. Richard and Edith Strauss Canada Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This brief report presents the preliminary findings of a participatory project, to answer a question raised by stakeholders in mental health services: How can providers and patients create a process for knowledge exchange to support recovery-oriented care? Method: Participatory action research (PAR) and narrative phenomenological methodology guided the selection of methods, which consisted of an iterative process between telling stories and dialoguing about personal values related to recovery. The sample consisted of three occupational therapists, a psychiatrist, an academic clinician, and five consumers of mental health services who were involved in each stage of the research, including design, interpretation, dissemination, and implementation. Results: Significant interpersonal and intrapersonal tensions were named, and conditions for a more sustainable procegs of knowledge exchange were explored. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: The project revealed both the challenges with situating research within an institution (hierarchy of knowledge, power, and vulnerability) and face-to-face dialogue, as well as positive changes in professional attitudes and consumer empowerment, as providers and patients came to understand what was at stake for each other. The project underscored the need for provider-consumer dialogue as a process to explore tensions and values in promoting recovery-oriented care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available