Skip to main content

Outcomes of a Freedom of Choice Reform in Community Mental Health Day Center Services

Abstract

A freedom-of-choice reform within mental health day center services was evaluated. The reform aimed to (1) facilitate users’ change between units and (2) increase the availability of service providers. Seventy-eight users responded to questionnaires about the reform, empowerment, social network, engagement and satisfaction and were followed-up after 15 months. Fifty-four percent knew about the reform. A majority stated the reform meant nothing to them; ~25 % had a negative and ~20 % a positive opinion. Satisfaction with the services had decreased after 15 months. Empowerment decreased for a more intensively followed subgroup. No positive consequences of the reform could thus be discerned.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Andersson, M., Eklund, M., Sandlund, M., & Markström, U. (in press). Freedom of choice or cost efficiency? The implementation of a free-choice market system in community mental health services in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research.

  2. Argentzell, E., Leufstadius, C., & Eklund, M. (2012). Factors influencing subjective perceptions of everyday occupations: comparing day centre attendees with non-attendees. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19, 68–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Argentzell, E., Leufstadius, C., & Eklund, M. (2014). Social interaction among people with psychiatric disabilities—Does attending a day centre matter? International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 60, 519–527.

  4. Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2004). Time-use and occupational performance among persons with schizophrenia. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 20(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bengtsson-Tops, A. (2004). Mastery in patients with schizophrenia living in the community: relationship to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, needs for care and support, and social network. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 11, 298–304.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bredgaard, T., & Larsen, F. (2008). Quasi markets in employment policy: Do they deliver on promises? Social Policy and Society, 7, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Catty, J., Burns, T., Comas, A., & Poole, Z. (2007). Day centers for severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1, Art. No.: CD001710. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001710.pub2.

  8. Eklund, M. (1997). Therapeutic factors in occupational group therapy identified by patients discharged from a psychiatric day center and their significant others. Occupational Therapy International, 4, 198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eklund, M., Bengtsson-Tops, A., & Lindstedt, H. (2007). Construct and discriminant validity and dimensionality of the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction (ISSI) in three psychiatric samples. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61, 182–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eklund, M., & Erlandsson, L. K. (2013). Quality of life and client satisfaction as outcomes of the Redesigning Daily Occupations (ReDO) programme for women with stress-related disorders: A comparative study. Work, 46, 51–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eklund, M., & Sandlund, M. (2012). The life situation of people with persistent mental illness visiting day centers: A comparative study. Community Mental Health Journal, 48, 592–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Endicott, J., Spitzer, R. L., Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1976). The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766–771.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Finn, D. (2009). The “welfare market” and the flexible new deal: Lessons from other countries. Local Economy, 24, 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedman, M., & Friedman, R.D. (1990). Free to choose : A personal statement (1st Harvest/HBJ ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

  15. Hansson, L., & Bjorkman, T. (2005). Empowerment in people with a mental illness: reliability and validity of the Swedish version of an empowerment scale. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19, 32–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Henderson, S., Duncan-Jones, P., Byrne, D. G., & Scott, R. (1980). Measuring social relationships. The Interview Schedule for Social Interaction. Psychological Medicine, 10, 723–734.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jolley, G., Freeman, T., Baum, F., Hurley, C., Lawless, A., Bentley, M., et al. (2014). Health policy in South Australia 2003–10: primary health care workforce perceptions of the impact of policy change on health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 25, 116–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Larsen, D. L., Attkisson, C. C., Hargreaves, W. A., & Nguyen, T. D. (1979). Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: Development of a general scale. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 197–207.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leufstadius, C., Eklund, M., & Erlandsson, L. K. (2009). Meaningfulness in work – Experiences among employed individuals with persistent mental illness. Work, 34, 21–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindqvist, R., Markström, U., & Rosenberg, D. (2010). Psykiska funktionshinder i samhället. Aktörer, insatser, reformer [Psychiatric disabilities in society. Actors, interventions, reforms]. Malmö: Gleerups.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Markström, U. (2003). Den svenska psykiatrireformen. Bland brukare, eldsjälar och byråkrater [The Swedish mental health reform. Among users, enthusiasts and bureaucrats]. Umeå: Boréa förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Board of Health and Welfare. (2011). Nationella riktlinjer för psykosociala insatser vid schizofreni och schizofreniliknande tillstånd —stöd för styrning och lednin. [National guidelines for psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia and related disorder —support for management and leadership]. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare.

  24. Perri 6. (2003). Giving consumers of British public services more choice: What can be learned from recent history? Journal of Social Policy, 32, 239–270.

  25. Rebeiro, K. L., & Cook, J. V. (1999). Opportunity, not prescription: an exploratory study of the experience of occupational engagement. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 176–187.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rogers, E. S., Chamberlin, J., Ellison, M. L., & Crean, T. (1997). A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 48, 1042–1047.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rogers, E. S., Ralph, R. O., & Salzer, M. S. (2010). Validating the empowerment scale with a multisite sample of consumers of mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 61, 933–936.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spall, P., McDonald, C., & Zetlin, D. (2005). Fixing the system? The experience of service users of the quasi-market in disability services in Australia. Health and Social Care in the Community, 13, 56–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Struyven, L., & Steurs, G. (2005). Design and redesign of a quasi-market for the reintegration of jobseekers: Empirical evidence from Australia and the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Swedish Governmental Reports. (2008). Lag (2008:962) om valfrihetssystem [Law (2008:962) about freedom of choice systems]. Stockholm: Swedish Governmental Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tjörnstrand, C., Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2011). Participation in day centres for people with psychiatric disabilities: Characteristics of occupations. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 18, 243–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tjörnstrand, C., Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2013a). Participation in day centres for people with psychiatric disabilities – A focus on occupational engagement. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 144–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tjörnstrand, C., Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2013b). Psychometric testing of a self-report measure of engagement in productive occupations. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80, 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tjörnstrand, C., Bejerholm, U., & Eklund, M. (2014). Factors influencing occupational engagement in day centres for people with psychiatric disabilities. Community Mental Health Journal. doi:10.1007/s10597-014-9765-0.

  35. Undén, A. L., & Orth-Gomer, K. (1989). Development of a social support instrument for use in population surveys. Social Science and Medicine, 29, 1387–1392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. WHO. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge that this study was financed by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, grant number 2010-1042.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Eklund.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eklund, M., Markström, U. Outcomes of a Freedom of Choice Reform in Community Mental Health Day Center Services. Adm Policy Ment Health 42, 664–671 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0601-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Community psychiatry
  • Client satisfaction
  • Empowerment
  • Procurement