Advertisement

Impact of a Co-produced Initiative for Mental Health Programming at a Canadian Psychiatric Hospital

  • Krystle MartinEmail author
  • Simone Arbour
  • Allison Stevens
Original Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

There has been a call for a paradigm shift in mental health to be more recovery-oriented and include service users in the development and delivery of services. Although co-production has been linked with positive outcomes, more work is needed to understand this approach in Canada. The current study assessed the outcomes of a co-production initiative for service design and delivery. The data yielded positive outcomes—both for facilitators and group participants—in two broad areas: related to personal recovery and positive attitudes toward the organization. This study provides support for co-production in mental health programming and further elucidation of this approach for mental healthcare settings in Canada.

Keywords

Co-design Co-production Recovery Mental health Programming 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This project did not receive financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Accreditation Canada. (2017). Community-based mental health services and supports for surveys starting January 01, 2019. Ottawa: Accreditation Canada; 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosoc Rehabil J. 1993;16(4):11–23.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A, Walters RH. Social learning theory, vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-hall; 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Byrne L, Happell B, Welch T, Moxham LJ. ‘Things you can’t learn from books’: teaching recovery from a lived experience perspective. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2013;22(3):195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chinman M, Oberman RS, Hanusa BH, Cohen AN, Salyers MP, Twamley EW, Young AS. A cluster randomized trial of adding peer specialists to intensive case management teams in the veterans health administration. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-013-9343-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coulthard K, Patel D, Brizzolara C, Morriss R, Watson S. A feasibility study of expert patient and community mental health team led bipolar psychoeducation groups: implementing evidence based practice. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Etgar M. Ways of engaging consumers in co-production. http://timreview.ca/article/307 (n.d.). Accessed 31 Aug 2017.
  9. 9.
    Glover H. Recovery based service delivery: are we ready to transform the words into a paradigm shift? Aust e-J Adv Ment Health. 2005;4(3):1–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Livingston JD, Nijdam-Jones A, Lapsley S, Calderwood C, Brink J. Supporting recovery by improving patient engagement in a forensic mental health hospital: results from a demonstration project. J Am Psychiatric Nurses Assoc. 2013;19(3):132–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin K, Stevens A, Arbour S. The process of developing a co-design and co- delivery initiative for mental health programming. J Psychosoc Rehabil Ment Health. 2017;4(2):247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer C, McKenzie K. ‘…it shows that there’s no limits’: the psychological impact of co-production for experts by experience working in youth mental health. Health Soc Care Commun. 2017;25(3):1181–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mental Health Commission of Canada. Guidelines for recovery oriented practice. Ottawa, ON;2015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slay J, Stephens L. Co-production in mental health: A literature review. London: New Economics Foundation. http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/ca0975b7cd88125c3e_ywm6bp3l1.pdf (2013). Accessed 6 Sept 2017.
  16. 16.
    Slay J, Robinson B. In this together: building knowledge about co-production. http://neweconomics.org/2011/07/in-this-together/?sf_action=get_results&_sf_s=slay&_sft_latest=research (2011). Accessed 11 Sept 2017.
  17. 17.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tambuyzer E, Pieters G, Van Audenhove C. Patient involvement in mental health care: one size does not fit all. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2014;17(1):138–50.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uyenaka R, Levine D. Co-production: a literature review and environment scale. https://www.durhamcollege.ca/wp-content/uploads/Final-Report-Co-production-Literature-Review-Env.-Scan-2016.pdf (2016). Accessed 12 Sept 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature India Private Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesWhitbyCanada
  2. 2.University of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada

Personalised recommendations