Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:56:31.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Growing recognition of the importance of service user involvement in mental health service planning and evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Graham Thornicroft*
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Health Senice Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, London (UK)
Michele Tansella
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Verona (Italy)
*
Address for correspondence: Professor G. Thornicroft, Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM). Health Service Research Department. Institute of Psychiatry. King's CollegeLondon. De Crespigny Park. London SE5 8AF (UK). Fax: +44-207-277.1462 E-mail: g.thornicroft@iop.kcl.ac.uk

Summary

Service user involvement in the planning and provision of mental health services has been growing over the last two decades, especially in countries and areas where institutional service provision has been changed to a community-orientated model of care. However, the material involvement of service users in mental health research is still in its infancy. The aim of this paper is to attempt to place these developments in a conceptual context, to summarise the ethics-based and evidence-based reasons why it has to be considered as necessary, and to illustrate some of the emerging evidence which shows the advantages to be gained from it. In particular the results of recent studies are briefly reported, showing that outcomes data rated by service users in some cases are more important than those rated by staff. The reduction in patient-rated unmet needs in the social domain was the strongest predictor of an increase in subjective quality of life. The importance of including service user preferences within the content of the research questions is exemplified by the results of a recent study that showed that joint crisis plans can significantly reduce the use of compulsory admission during crises and by a review that demonstrated that the use of an explicit service user perspective produced distinctive insights into the long-term effects of Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT).

Declaration of Interest: none.

Type
Inclusion and Mental Health in the New Europe
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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.)

References

Beresford, P. (2005). Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowis, J. (2005). Whose mind is it anyway? Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 3943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, J. (2005). User/consumer involvement in mental health service delivery. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, A. & Thomas, P. (2002). User-led research and evidence-based medicine. British Journal of Psychiatry 180, 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, A., Saunders, A. & Thomas, H. (2005). Attuned Practice: a service user study of specialist child and adolesent mental health in the UK. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 2231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C., Flood, C., Leese, M., Thornicroft, G., Sutherby, K. & Szmukler, G. (2004). Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsion in psychiatric treatment: single blind RCT. British Medical Journal 329, 136138.Google Scholar
Kokaliari, E.D. & Lanzaro, K. (2005). Deliberate self-injury. A consumer-therapist co-run group. A choice or a necessity? Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 3238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasalvia, A., Bonetto, C., Malchiodi, F., Salvi, G.Parabiaghi, A., Tansella, M. & Ruggeri, M. (submitted for publication). Listening to patients' needs to improve their quality of life. A follow-up study in community psychiatric care.Google Scholar
Lehmann, P. (2005). All about PSY DREAM. Psychiatric drug registration, evaluation and all-inclusive monitoring. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D.. Fleischmann, P.. Wykes, T., Leese, M. & Bindman, J. (2003). Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. British Medical Journal 326, 1363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D.Thornicroft, G. & Slade, M. (submitted for publication). Who decides what is evidence? Developing a multiple perspectives paradigm in mental health.Google Scholar
Slade, M., Phelan, M. & Thornicroft, G. (1998). A comparison of needs assessed by staff and by an epidemiologically representative sample of patients with psychosis. Psychological Medicine 28, 543550.Google ScholarPubMed
Slade, M., Leese, M., Kuipers, E.. Thornicroft, G., Ruggeri, M. & Tansella, M. (2004). Does meeting needs improve quality of life? Psychotherapy Psychosomatics 73, 183189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strategies for Living (2003). Surviving User-Led Research. Mental Health Foundation: London.Google Scholar
Thornicroft, G. & Slade, M. (2002). Comparing needs assessed by staff and by service users: paternalism or partnership in mental health? Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 11, 186191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G. & Tansella, M. (1999a). The Mental Health Matrix; a Manual to Improve Services. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornicroft, G. & Tansella, M. (1999b). Translating ethical principles into outcome measures for mental health service research. Psychological Medicine 29, 761767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G., Rose, D., Huxley, P., Dale, G. & Wykes, T. (2002). Editorial: What are the research priorities of mental health service users? Journal of Mental Health 11(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, P. & Wykes, T. (2002). From passive subjects to equal partners: qualitative review of user involvement in research. British Journal of Psychiatry 181, 468472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed