Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T05:16:24.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of co-facilitated information programmes on outcomes for service users and family members: the EOLAS programmes (paper 2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

A. Higgins ,
D. Hevey ,
P. Gibbons ,
C. O’ Connor ,
F. Boyd ,
P. McBennett  and
M. Monaghan
A. Higgins*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
D. Hevey
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
P. Gibbons
Affiliation:
Celbridge Adult Mental Health Services, Kildare, Ireland
C. O’ Connor
Affiliation:
Celbridge Adult Mental Health Services, Kildare, Ireland
F. Boyd
Affiliation:
Celbridge Adult Mental Health Services, Kildare, Ireland
P. McBennett
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Monaghan
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
*
*Address for correspondence: A. Higgins, Ph.D., M.Sc., BNS, RPN, RGN, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin D02. PN40, Ireland. (Email: ahiggins@tcd.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The present study evaluated the impact on psychosocial outcome of parallel clinician and peer-led information programmes for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and for family members within an Irish context.

Methods

A sequential mixed method design was used. Quantitative data were collected using pre- and post-programme questionnaires followed by an integrated qualitative component involving semi-structured interviews after the programme. The questionnaires assessed knowledge, attitudes towards recovery, hope, support, advocacy and well-being. Interviews with participants, facilitators and project workers explored their experiences and views of the programme.

Findings

While a number of the questionnaires did not show a statistically significant change, findings from the interviews suggest that the1 programmes had a number of positive outcomes, including increases in perceived knowledge, empowerment and support. Participants in both programmes valued the opportunity to meet people in similar circumstances, share their experiences, learn from each other and provide mutual support.

Conclusion

The EOLAS programmes offer a novel template for communication and information sharing in a way that embodies the principles of collaboration and offers users and families a meaningful opportunity to become involved in service design, delivery and evaluation.

Keywords

Action researchco-facilitationevaluationmixed methodspeer facilitationrecovery

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 29 - 37
Copyright
© College of Psychiatrists of Ireland 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barber, J, Rosenheck, R, Armstrong, M, Resnick, S (2008). Monitoring the dissemination of peer support in the VA system. Community Mental Health Journal 44, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, J, Steffan, J, Krzton, E, Wishnick, H, Wilder, K, Yangarber, N (2000). Recovery attitudes questionnaire: development and evaluation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 24, 95–102.Google Scholar
Brashers, D, Haas, S, Neidig, J (1999). The patient self-advocacy scale: measuring patient involvement in health care decision-making interactions. Health Communication 11, 97–121.Google Scholar
Brosnan, L (2006). What Part of the Picture? Perspectives of Service Users and Carers on Partnership within Mental Health Services. Western Mental Health Alliance: Galway.Google Scholar
Compton, MT, Quintero, L, Esterberg, ML. (2007). Assessing knowledge of schizophrenia: development and psychometric properties of a brief, multiple-choice knowledge test for use across various samples. Psychiatry Research 151, 87–95.Google Scholar
Crowe, K (2006). What We Heard: A Report on the Viewpoints of 100 Service Users Currently Using Acute Admission Wards or Long-Stay Facilities. Irish Advocacy Network on behalf of the Expert Group of Mental Health Policy: Dublin.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Children (2006). A Vision for Change: Report of the Expert Group on Mental Health Policy. The Stationery Office: Dublin.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Children, Health Service Executive and Health Services National Partnership Forum (2008). National Strategy for Service User Involvement in the Irish Health Service: 2008-2013. Health Service Executive: Dublin.Google Scholar
Dunne, EA (2006). Report of a Survey for the Mental Health Commission: The Views of Adult Users of the Public Sector Mental Health Services. Mental Health Commission: Dublin.Google Scholar
Finn, LD, Bishop, B, Sparrow, NH (2007). Mutual help groups: an important gateway to well being and mental health. Australian Health Review 31, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, BG, Strauss, AL (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago.Google Scholar
Goldberg, DP, Gater, R, Sartorius, N, Ustun, TB, Piccinelli, M, Gureje, O, Rutter, C (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine 27, 191–197.Google Scholar
Herth, K (1992). Abbreviated instrument to measure hope: development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 17, 1251–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, A (2008). A Recovery Approach within the Irish Mental Health Services: A Framework for Development. Mental Health Commission: Dublin.Google Scholar
Higgins, A, Callaghan, P, deVries, J, Keogh, B, Morrissey, J, Nash, M, Ryan, D, Gijels, H, Carter, T (2012). Evaluation of mental health recovery and Wellness Recovery Action Planning education in Ireland: a mixed methods pre–post evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68, 2418–2428.Google Scholar
Higgins, A, Hevey, D, Gibbons, P, O’Connor, C, Boyd, F, McBennett, P (2015). A participatory approach to the development of a co-produced and co-delivered information programme for users of services and family members: The EOLAS programme paper 1. IJPM.Google Scholar
Hogan, TP, Awad, AG, Eastwood, R (1983). A self-report scale predictive of drug compliance in schizophrenics: reliability and discriminative validity. Psychological Medicine 13, 177–183.Google Scholar
Jormfeldt, H, Rask, M, Brunt, D, Bengtsson, A, Svedberg, P (2012). Experiences of a Person-Centred Health Education Group Intervention–a qualitative study among people with a persistent mental illness. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 33, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kartalova-O’Doherty, Y, Doherty, D, Walsh, D (2008). Family Support Study: A Study of the Experiences, Needs and Support Requirements of Families with Enduring Mental Illness in Ireland. Health Research Board: Dublin.Google Scholar
McDaid, S (2006). Equal and Inclusive User Involvement in the Mental Health Services in Ireland: Results from Participatory Action Research. University College Dublin: Dublin.Google Scholar
Mental Health Commission (2005). Quality in Mental Health-Your Views: Report on Stakeholder Consultation on Quality in Mental Health Services. Mental Health Commission: Dublin.Google Scholar
Mental Health Commission (2007). Quality Framework: Mental Health Services in Ireland. Mental Health Commission: Dublin.Google Scholar
National Service User Executive (2011). Second Opinions: Summary Report of the NSUE Survey of Members on Vision for Change. National Service User Executive: Dublin.Google Scholar
Park, M, Zafran, H, Stewart, J, Salsberg, J, Carolyn Ells, C, Rouleau, S, Estein, O, Valente, T (2014). Transforming mental health services: a participatory mixed methods study to promote and evaluate the implementation of recovery-oriented services. Implementation Science 9, 119.Google Scholar
Pearlin, LI, Mullan, JT, Semple, SJ, Skaff, MM (1990). Caregiving and the stress process: an overview of concepts and their measures. The Gerontologist 30, 583–594.Google Scholar
Rabovsky, K, Stoppe, G (2006). The role of psychoeducation in the treatment of psychiatric inpatients. Nevenarzt 77, 538–548.Google Scholar
Rappaport, J (2000). Community narratives: tales of terror and joy. Community Psychology 28, 1–24.Google Scholar
Resnick, S, Rosenheck, R (2008). Integrating peer-provided services: a quasi-experimental study of recovery orientation, confidence and empowerment. Psychiatric Services 59, 1307–1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rummel, C, Hansen, W, Helbig, A, Pitschel-Walz, G, Kissling, W (2005). Peer-to-peer psychoeducation in schizophrenia: a new approach. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 66, 1580–1585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibitz, I, Amering, M, Gössler, R, Unger, A, Katschnig, H (2007). Patients’ perspectives on what works in psychoeducational groups for schizophrenia. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, 909–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, P, Draine, J, Mannion, E, Meisel, M (1997). Effectiveness of two models of brief family education: retention of gains by family members of adults with serious mental illness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 67, 177–186.Google Scholar
Watts, M (2014). Peer support and mutual help as a means to recovery. In Mental Health in Ireland: Policy, Practice and Law (ed. A Higgins and S McDaid), pp. 235–250. Gill & Macmillan: Dublin.Google Scholar
Western Health Board and Schizophrenia Ireland (2002). Pathways Report: Experiences of Mental Health Services from a User-Led Perspective. Western Health Board: Galway.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2010). User Empowerment in Mental Health: A Statement by the WHO Regional Office for Europe. World Health Organization: Copenhagen.Google Scholar