↓ Skip to main content

Dilemmas in recovery-oriented practice to support people with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: a qualitative study of staff experiences in Norway

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Dilemmas in recovery-oriented practice to support people with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: a qualitative study of staff experiences in Norway
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13033-018-0211-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Brekke, Lars Lien, Kari Nysveen, Stian Biong

Abstract

Recovery-oriented practice is recommended in services for people with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Understanding practitioners' perceptions of recovery-oriented services may be a key component of implementing recovery principles in day-to-day practice. This study explores and describes staff experiences with dilemmas in recovery-oriented practice to support people with co-occurring disorders. Three focus group interviews were carried out over the course of 2 years with practitioners in a Norwegian community mental health and addictions team that was committed to developing recovery-oriented services. Thematic analysis was applied to yield descriptions of staff experiences with dilemmas in recovery-oriented practice. Three dilemmas were described: (1) balancing mastery and helplessness, (2) balancing directiveness and a non-judgmental attitude, and (3) balancing total abstinence and the acceptance of substance use. Innovative approaches to practice development that address the inherent dilemmas in recovery-oriented practice to support people with co-occurring disorders are called for.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Psychology 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#8,286,959
of 24,795,084 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#450
of 747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,845
of 335,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,795,084 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 747 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 335,084 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.