↓ Skip to main content

Recovery-based staff training intervention within mental health rehabilitation units: a two-stage analysis using realistic evaluation principles and framework approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recovery-based staff training intervention within mental health rehabilitation units: a two-stage analysis using realistic evaluation principles and framework approach
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0999-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sadiq Bhanbhro, Melanie Gee, Sarah Cook, Louise Marston, Melanie Lean, Helen Killaspy

Abstract

Long-term change in recovery-based practice in mental health rehabilitation is a research priority. We used a qualitative case study analysis using a blend of traditional 'framework' analysis and 'realist' approaches to carry out an evaluation of a recovery-focused staff training intervention within three purposively selected mental health rehabilitation units. We maximised the validity of the data by triangulating multiple data sources. We found that organisational culture and embedding of a change management programme in routine practice were reported as key influences in sustaining change in practice. The qualitative study generated 10 recommendations on how to achieve long-term change in practice including addressing pre-existing organisational issues and synergising concurrent change programmes. We propose that a recovery-focused staff training intervention requires clear leadership and integration with any existing change management programmes to facilitate sustained improvements in routine practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,931,785
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,259
of 4,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,901
of 346,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#74
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.