Abstract
It has been suggested that user involvement in heath care leads to improved services. The aim of the study was to explore attitudes towards user involvement of staff employed in Norwegian Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Most of the investigated mental health service staff expressed the opinion that users should be involved in the planning of their own treatment and generally have a positive attitude towards user involvement. Skepticism was related to some aspects of involvement and does not contradict their generally positive attitude towards user involvement.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barley, V., Tritter, J., Daykin, N., Evans, S., McNeill, J., & Turton, P. (2007). Good practice for user involvement. http://www.dh.gov.uk/n/Policyand guidance/Researchanddevelopment/HealthinPartnership/Thestudies/DH_4127449. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Brislin, R. W. (Ed.). (1976). Translations: Applications and research. New York: Wiley/Halsted.
Brody, D. S., Miller, S. M., Lerman, C. E., Smith, D. G., & Caputo, G. C. (1989). Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 4, 506–511. doi:10.1007/BF02599549.
Bryant, M. (2008). Introduction to user involvement. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. http://www.scmh.org.uk/80256FBD004F3555/vWeb/flKHAL6H9G4N/$file/introduction+to+user+involvement.pdf. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Chinman, M. J., Weingarten, R., Stayner, D., & Davidson, L. (2001). Chronicity reconsidered: improving person-environment fit through a consumer-run service. Community Mental Health Journal, 37, 215–229. doi:10.1023/A:1017577029956.
Collins, F., Sheils, R., Peacock, G., Bannon, L., & Viers, N. (2004). Survey of consumer and carer experience of Victorian public child and adolescent mental health services 2003/2004. Statewide sector report. Sandringham: TQA Research Pty. Ltd.
Crawford, M. J., & Rutter, D. (2004). Are the views of members of mental health user groups representative for those of ‘ordinary’ patients? A cross-sectional survey of service users and providers. Journal of Mental Health, 13, 561–568. doi:10.1080/09638230400017111.
Delsignore, A., Carraro, G., Mathier, F., Znoj, H., & Schnyder, U. (2008). Perceived responsibility for change as an outcome predictor in cognitive-behavioural group therapy. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 281–293. doi:10.1348/014466508X279486.
Farina, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1982). Beliefs about mental disorders: findings and implications. In G. Weary & H. L. Mirels (Eds.), Integrations of Clinical, Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felton, C. J., Stastny, P., Shern, D. L., Blanch, A., Donahue, S. A., Knight, E., et al. (1995). Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: impact on client outcomes. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 46, 1037–1044.
Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (1980). Human helplessness: Theory and applications. New York: Academic Press.
Grace, S. L., Abbey, S. E., Shenk, Z. M., Irvine, J., Franche, R. L., & Stewart, D. E. (2002). Cardiac rehabilitation II: referral and participation. General Hospital Psychiatry, 24, 127–134. doi:10.1016/S0163-8343(02)00179-2.
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S., & Ware, J. E. (1985). Expanding patient involvement in care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 102, 520–528.
Griffiths, H., & Jordan, S. (1998). Thinking of the future and walking back to normal: an exploratory study of patients’ experiences during recovery from lower limb fracture. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 1276–1288. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00847.x.
Kaba, R., & Sooriakumaran, P. (2007). The evolution of the doctor-patient relationship. International Journal of Surgery, 5, 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.01.005.
Katan, J., & Prager, E. (1986). Consumer and worker participation in agency-level decision-making: Some considerations of their linkages. Administration in Social Work, 10, 79–88.
Kent, H., & Read, J. (1998). Measuring consumer participation in mental health services: are attitudes related to professional orientation? The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 44, 295–310. doi:10.1177/002076409804400406.
Kristensson-Hallström, I., Elander, G., & Malmfors, G. (1997). Increased parental participation in a paediatric surgical day-care unit. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 6, 297–302. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.1997.tb00318.x.
Lefley, J. (1990). Culture and chronic mental illness. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 41, 277–286.
Lewis, L. (2004). User involvement in mental health services: A study in Grampian. University of Aberdeen. http://www.aberdeenccn.info/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=499&sID=13. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Middelton, P., Stanton, P., & Renouf, N. (2004). Consumer consultants in metal health services: addressing the challenges. Journal of Mental Health, 13, 507–518. doi:10.1080/09638230400004424.
Nelson, R. A., & Borkovec, T. D. (1989). Relationship of client participation to psychotherapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 155–162. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(89)90048-7.
Nyland, J., Johnson, D. L., Caborn, D. N., & Brindle, T. (2002). Internal health status belief and lower perceived functional deficit are related among anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients. Arthroscopy, 18, 515–518. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.32217.
Regeringens strategiplan for barn og unges psykiske helse. (2003) Together for mental health (‘… sammen om psykisk helse…Norwegian). http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/hd/bro/2003/0004/ddd/pdfv/187063-s.pdf. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Regulations No. (2001). 676 of 8 June 2001 on individual plans under health legislation. Norsk Lovtidend. Part I, 8, 1092–1109
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.
Sartorius, N., & Kuyken, W. (1994). Translation of health status instruments. In J. Orley & W. Kuyken (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: International perspectives (pp. 3–18). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Philadelphia: Hemisphere Publishing.
Simpson, E. L., & House, A. O. (2002). Involving users in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 325, 1265–1268. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1265.
Simpson, E. L., & House, A. O. (2003). User and carer involvement in mental health services: from rhetoric to science. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 89–91. doi:10.1192/bjp.183.2.89.
Soffe, J., Read, J., & Frude, N. (2004). A survey of clinical psychologists’ views regarding service user involvement in mental health services. Journal of Mental Health, 13, 583–592. doi:10.1080/09638230400017020.
Tait, L., & Lester, H. (2005). Encouraging user involvement in mental health services. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 168–175. doi:10.1192/apt.11.3.168.
Telford, R., & Faulkner, A. (2004). Learning about service user involvement in mental health research. Journal of Mental Health, 13, 549–559. doi:10.1080/09638230400017137.
Tew, J., Townend, M., Hendry, S., Ryan, D., Glynn, T., & Clark, M. (2003). On the road to partnership? user involvement in education and training in the West Midlands. Executive summary and recommendations. http://www.mhhe.heacademy.ac.uk/docs/external/ontheroad.doc. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Worrall-Davies, A. (2008). Barriers and facilitators to children’s and young people’s view affecting CAMHS planning and delivery. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13, 16–18. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00456.x.
Worrall-Davies, A., & Marino-Francis, F. (2008). Eliciting children’s and young people’s views of child and adolescent mental health services: a systematic review of best practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13, 9–15. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00448.x.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Anne Andersen, Inger Hodne and Knut Halvard Bronder who took part in the planning and implementation of this work and were members of the project group. Thanks are also due to the participants in this study and to the leaders at all clinics who helped distribute the questionnaire. Thanks are also due to Professor Horwitz for her guidance and comments on this piece. The project was carried out with financial support from the Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Substantial relationships between CPQ items; Norwegian CAMHS version; χ 2 scores; p.
-
Item 1 with item 2.aN: χ 2 (4) = 58.61; p < 0.001/item 2.bN: χ 2 (4) = 32.83; p < 0.001/with item 8: χ 2 (4) = 15.81; p = 0.003/with item 9: χ 2 (4) = 15.33; p = 0.004/with item 12: χ 2 (4) = 14.96; p = 0.005.
-
Item 2.aN: with item 2.bN: χ 2 (4) = 95.80; p < 0.001/with item 15: χ 2 (4) = 13.85; p = 0.008.
-
Item 2.bN: with item 15: χ 2 (4) = 16.96; p = 0.002/with item 19.1: χ 2 (2) = 9.58; p = 0.008.
-
Item 3: with item 4: χ 2 (4) = 52.03; p < 0.001/with item 10: χ 2 (4) = 18.57; p < 0.001/with item 12: χ 2 (4) = 14.56; p = 0.006.
-
Item 6N: with item 11: χ 2 (4) = 32.49; p < 0.001/with item 16: χ 2 (4) = 17.23; p = 0.002.
-
Item 7N: with item 6: χ 2 (20) = 70.27; p < 0.001/with item 14: χ 2 (16) = 33.29; p = 0.007/with item 16: χ 2 (8) = 29.88; p < 0.001/with item 19.3: χ 2 (4) = 15.45; p = 0.004 with item 20.6: χ 2 (4) = 14.01; p = 0.007.
-
Item 8N: with item 14: χ 2 (16) = 41.14; p = 0.001.
-
Item 6: with item 14: χ 2 (20) = 37.53; p = 0.010/with item 15: χ 2 (10) = 23.16; p = 0.010.
-
Item 7: with item 13: χ 2 (4) = 14.99; p = 0.005/with item 16: χ 2 (4) = 13.70; p = 0.008.
-
Item 8: with item 9: χ 2 (4) = 57.90; p < 0.001/with item 10: χ 2 (4) = 15.20; p = 0.004/with item 12: χ 2 (4) = 18.62; p = 0.001/with item 20.1: χ 2 (2) = 9.46; p = 0.009.
-
Item 8: with item 20.6: χ 2 (2) = 12.41; p = 0.002.
-
Item 9: with item 10: χ 2 (4) = 17.64; p = 0.001/with item 11: χ 2 (4) = 30.89; p < 0.001/with item 12: χ 2 (4) = 17.89; p = 0.001/with item 16: χ 2 (4) = 14.45; p = 0.006.
-
Item 11: with item 16: χ 2 (4) = 19.90; p = 0.001.
-
Item 12: with item 20.1: χ 2 (2) = 9.58; p = 0.008.
-
Item 13: with item 20.1: χ 2 (2) = 10.13; p = 0.006.
-
Item 14: with item 16: χ 2 (4) = 67.44; p < 0.001.
-
Item 15: with item 19.2: χ 2 (2) = 14.63; p = 0.001/with item 20.2: χ 2 (2) = 15.42; p < 0.001.
-
Item 16: with item 20.6: χ 2 (2) = 13.96; p < 0.001.
-
Item 17: with item 18: χ 2 (24) = 45.95; p = 0.004/with item 20.3: χ 2 (6) = 19.49; p = 0.003/with item 20.6: χ 2 (6) = 19.48; p = 0.003/with item 20.7: χ 2 (6) = 19.52; p = 0.003/with item 20.8: χ 2 (6) = 32.74; p < 0.001.
-
Item 18: with item 19.3: χ 2 (4) = 16.20; p = 0.003/with item 19.4: χ 2 (4) = 13.24; p = 0.010/with item 20.3: χ 2 (4) = 23.57; p < 0.001/with item 20.5: χ 2 (4) = 23.27; p < 0.001/with item 20.7: χ 2 (4) = 14.43; p = 0.006/with item 20.8: χ 2 (4) = 20.10; p < 0.001.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richter, J., Halliday, S., Grømer, L.I. et al. User and Carer Involvement in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Norwegian Staff Perspective. Adm Policy Ment Health 36, 265–277 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-009-0219-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-009-0219-x