↓ Skip to main content

What are “good outcomes” in public mental health settings? A qualitative exploration of clients’ and therapists’ experiences

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
What are “good outcomes” in public mental health settings? A qualitative exploration of clients’ and therapists’ experiences
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0119-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Moltu, Jon Stefansen, Jan Christian Nøtnes, Åse Skjølberg, Marius Veseth

Abstract

The mental health field sees a surge of interest in Routine Outcome Monitoring, mandated by a wish to help better those not-on-track to recovery. What constitutes positive outcomes for these patients is not fully understood. To contribute knowledge into what constitutes meaningful outcome concepts in the experiences of patients with long and complex mental health suffering and treatment, and the clinicians who work to help them. A qualitative in-depth study of 50 participants' experiences. Data are collected through focus groups and individual interviews, and analyzed using a team based structured thematic analytic approach. We found an overarching theme of outcome as an ongoing process of recovery, with the four constituent themes: (1) strengthening approach patterns for new coping; (2) embodying change reflected by others; (3) using new understandings developed in dialogue; and (4) integrating collaborative acceptance. We discuss our findings in light of existing empirical studies and different recovery concepts, and suggest that if outcomes monitoring is to become an integral part of routine practice, it might be beneficial to integrate an understanding of outcomes as ongoing processes of recovery within mental health suffering into these systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,612,133
of 24,547,718 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#310
of 741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,622
of 431,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,547,718 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.