↓ Skip to main content

Health and social care coordination for severe and persistent mental illness in Australia: a mixed methods evaluation of experiences with the Partners in Recovery Program

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Health and social care coordination for severe and persistent mental illness in Australia: a mixed methods evaluation of experiences with the Partners in Recovery Program
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13033-018-0194-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Banfield, Owen Forbes

Abstract

Care coordination has been identified as a person-centred response to the difficulty in meeting the needs of people with severe and persistent mental illness and complex needs. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of the Partners in Recovery initiative in the Australian Capital Territory, a program established to improve coordination of health and social care for this population. Client, carer and service provider experiences were investigated using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires completed by clients (n = 25) and service providers (n = 14). Qualitative data comprised open-ended written feedback from the surveys, together with semi-structured interviews with selected clients (n = 6), carers (n = 2), and service providers (n = 4). In both study elements, questions focused on dimensions of experience such as communication, continuity and coordination, teamwork and sustainability. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative data; qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. Clients were satisfied with the program across the majority of experience dimensions, and there was evidence of improved access to coordinated care. Support Facilitators (care coordinators) were central to client and carer reports of the impacts of the program, and to coordination between services through connections built at the individual level. Challenges included difficulties with information continuity, a lack of role clarity for service providers, and uncertainty about the legacy of the program given the absence of formal agreements connecting different services. The Support Facilitator role was critical to the success of the program. Support Facilitators acted as a source of stability and relational continuity for clients, while also enabling connections with external services through the development of individual level partnerships and personal networks. Systems level coordination was limited by communication difficulties and a lack of formalised infrastructure to support cooperation between services, calling into question the lasting impact of the program for system change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,122,990
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#399
of 745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,375
of 334,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 334,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.