OBJECTIVE: Service provision in psychiatric and social care is increasingly guided by recovery principles. However, little is known about the degree of consensus among stakeholders in diverse contexts on the components of care that most promote recovery. This study aimed to identify specific items of care that key stakeholders regard as most important in promoting recovery for people with longer-term mental health problems in institutional care, to measure consensus between and across stakeholder groups and countries, and to develop a conceptual framework of the most important domains of care. METHODS: Ten European countries in various stages of deinstitutionalization participated in a series of conventional three-round iterative Delphi exercises. In each country individuals in four separate expert groups (service users, mental health professionals, caregivers, and advocates) identified components of care that they considered important to recovery and then rated their group's suggestions in terms of importance. Median and consensus ratings were measured. High-ranking items were grouped into domains. RESULTS: A total of 4,098 separate items of care were proposed by the 40 participating groups. Eleven broad domains of care important for recovery were identified: social policy and human rights, social inclusion, self-management and autonomy, therapeutic interventions, governance, staffing, staff attitudes, institutional environment, postdischarge care, caregivers, and physical health care. Consensus between groups and countries was generally high, but some modest differences in priorities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The most consistently highly rated consensus domain was therapeutic interventions. Domains and components of care related to recovery principles were also viewed as important across stakeholder groups.
OBJECTIVE: Service provision in psychiatric and social care is increasingly guided by recovery principles. However, little is known about the degree of consensus among stakeholders in diverse contexts on the components of care that most promote recovery. This study aimed to identify specific items of care that key stakeholders regard as most important in promoting recovery for people with longer-term mental health problems in institutional care, to measure consensus between and across stakeholder groups and countries, and to develop a conceptual framework of the most important domains of care. METHODS: Ten European countries in various stages of deinstitutionalization participated in a series of conventional three-round iterative Delphi exercises. In each country individuals in four separate expert groups (service users, mental health professionals, caregivers, and advocates) identified components of care that they considered important to recovery and then rated their group's suggestions in terms of importance. Median and consensus ratings were measured. High-ranking items were grouped into domains. RESULTS: A total of 4,098 separate items of care were proposed by the 40 participating groups. Eleven broad domains of care important for recovery were identified: social policy and human rights, social inclusion, self-management and autonomy, therapeutic interventions, governance, staffing, staff attitudes, institutional environment, postdischarge care, caregivers, and physical health care. Consensus between groups and countries was generally high, but some modest differences in priorities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The most consistently highly rated consensus domain was therapeutic interventions. Domains and components of care related to recovery principles were also viewed as important across stakeholder groups.
Authors: Helen Killaspy; Sarah White; Christine Wright; Tatiana L Taylor; Penny Turton; Matthias Schützwohl; Mirjam Schuster; Jorge A Cervilla; Paulette Brangier; Jiri Raboch; Lucie Kališová; Georgi Onchev; Spiridon Alexiev; Roberto Mezzina; Pina Ridente; Durk Wiersma; Ellen Visser; Andrzej Kiejna; Tomasz Adamowski; Dimitri Ploumpidis; Fragiskos Gonidakis; José Caldas-de-Almeida; Graça Cardoso; Michael B King Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Helen Killaspy; Sarah White; Christine Wright; Tatiana L Taylor; Penny Turton; Thomas Kallert; Mirjam Schuster; Jorge A Cervilla; Paulette Brangier; Jiri Raboch; Lucie Kalisova; Georgi Onchev; Spiridon Alexiev; Roberto Mezzina; Pina Ridente; Durk Wiersma; Ellen Visser; Andrzej Kiejna; Patryk Piotrowski; Dimitris Ploumpidis; Fragiskos Gonidakis; José Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida; Graça Cardoso; Michael King Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Graça Cardoso; Ana Papoila; Gina Tomé; Helen Killaspy; Michael King; José Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Helen Killaspy; Sarah White; Sarah Dowling; Joanna Krotofil; Peter McPherson; Sima Sandhu; Maurice Arbuthnott; Sarah Curtis; Gerard Leavey; Stefan Priebe; Geoff Shepherd; Michael King Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.630