ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2157-0200
Current Organisation
University of Manchester
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 25-08-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-2020
DOI: 10.1111/HEX.13007
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-03-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S13033-020-00352-Z
Abstract: Civic engagement (CE) has the potential to transform mental health services and could be particularly important for low and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are rapidly developing to respond to the burden of poor mental health. Research from high income countries has found many challenges associated with the meaningful implementation of CE in practice, but this has been underexplored in LIMCS and in South East Asia (SEA) in particular. We completed a realist synthesis and systematic review of peer reviewed publications and grey literature to identify the context and actions which promote successful implementation of CE approaches in SEA. We used a theory-driven approach—realist synthesis—to analyse data and develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations that can be used to explain how civic engagement approaches operate in South East Asian contexts. We worked closely with patient and public representatives to guide the review from the outset. Fifty-seven published and unpublished articles were included, 24 were evaluations of CE, including two Randomized Controlled Trials. The majority of CE interventions featured uptake or adaptation of Western models of care. We identified important cultural differences in the enactment of civic engagement in SEA contexts and four mechanisms which, alongside their contextual barriers and facilitators, can be used to explain how civic engagement produces a range of outcomes for people experiencing mental health problems, their families and communities. Our review illustrates how CE interventions can be successfully implemented in SEA, however Western models should be adapted to fit with local cultures and values to promote successful implementation. Barriers to implementation included distrust of services/outside agencies, stigma, paternalistic cultures, limited resource and infrastructure. Our findings provide guidance for the implementation of CE approaches within SEA contexts and identify areas for further research. Due to the collectivist nature of many SEA cultures, and the impact of shared traumas on community mental health, CE might best be implemented at community level, with a focus on relational decision making. Registration This review is registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018087841.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCHRES.2022.06.018
Abstract: This review aimed to examine the evidence base for the use of personal recovery facilitators [non-psychopharmacological approaches] for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and other psychoses. A systematic review (umbrella review) was conducted of reviews published in English between January 2010 and February 2022, which examined the effectiveness of personal recovery facilitators to support aspects of personal recovery as defined by the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope and optimism, identity, meaning and purpose, and empowerment). Twenty-one systematic reviews on thirteen different types of personal recovery facilitators [PRFs] were included in this umbrella review. Only one review sought to directly measure personal recovery processes according to the CHIME framework. Outcome measures mostly aligned with the processes of hope (21 reviews) and connectedness (19 reviews). Those related to empowerment (2 reviews), identity (5 reviews) and meaning and purpose (1 review) were less frequently the focus of PRFs. Yoga and music therapy showed the most promise as PRFs. Vocational treatments and integrated supported employment show good potential as personal recovery facilitators. However, together with narrative photovoice, art making and exhibition, they require further robust research to fully examine their impact. Personal recovery is only beginning to be considered as an intended outcome of interventions for persons with schizophrenia and other psychoses. This may be due in part to the continued predominance of the biomedical model approach to recovery within statutory services. Future evaluations of PRFs should include outcome measures that directly assess personal recovery according to the CHIME framework or other measures developed in consultation with recipients of these approaches. Review registration number and date: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020215471: 10/11/20.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Helen Brooks.