Awareness of a community mental health center among three “gatekeeper” groups

Perlmutter, Felice Davidson; Yudin, Lee W.; Heinemann, Shirley H.

doi:10.1007/bf00894151

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The school counselors and clergy were most accessible by telephone while the police were most accessible for completing a questionnaire during their daily briefing. Consistent with Perlmutter et al's (1974) experience, physicians were the most difficult to contact, and the mail-out survey with a physician's endorsement was selected when the telephone survey was found to be unsuccessful. Other CMHCs wishing to query gatekeepers groups might wish to use a similar method to maximize their response rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither Glasser et al (1975) nor Perlmutter et al (1 974) reported response rates although their gatekeeper awareness levels were 33% and 87%, respectively. However, Perlmutter et al (1974) noted that physicians were quite difficult to contact by telephone and of those who were contacted, many refused to participate. Also, they reported that many clergy were difficult to even locate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing a CMHC's impact: Resident and gatekeeper awareness of center services

Scott

Balch

Flynn

1984

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One accessible measure of the impact a community mental health center has on the community it serves is the awareness levels of both residents and gatekeeper groups regarding the center's existence and services. This broad‐based study was conducted with university students at no cost to the center and included 436 residents and 175 gatekeepers. The results indicated that awareness levels for community residents and gatekeeper groups were 34% and 53%, respectively, but varied dramatically as a function of how the awareness questions were phrased. The overall awareness findings generally supported those of other studies and were discussed in light of potential normative levels, methods for conducting surveys of this nature, response rates, and the increasing need to justify existence given the diminishing funding situation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing a CMHC's impact: Resident and gatekeeper awareness of center services

Scott

Balch

Flynn

1984

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating community awareness of a community mental health center

White

Susskind

1980

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess community awareness of a community mental health center, a telephone survey was conducted, using a random stratified sample. In order to provide comparative analyses, two other mental health agencies were included in the study. Five specific issues were addressed: (a) the percentage of the population that was aware of the agencies, (b) inter‐agency comparisons, (c) heterogeneity of awareness levels among geographic areas, (d) the relative merit of different sources of information, and (e) the relationship between awareness and demographic factors. The results indicated relatively high levels of awareness for the three agencies (X̄ = 57%). There were, however, significant differences in awareness levels between agencies and between geographic areas. The source of information cited most often by respondents was the newspaper; in addition, there was an effect for the primary agency's storefront office. Sex, education, and family size had significant but weak correlations with the amount of accurate information a respondent possessed. The results provided substantive answers to the agency's concerns as well as methodological guidelines for future evaluations of community awareness.

show abstract

A Study of Pastoral Care, Referral, and Consultation Practices Among Clergy in Four Settings in the New York City Area

Moran

Flannelly²,

Weaver³

et al. 2005

Pastoral Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clergy (N = 179) in the catchment areas of four hospitals in New York and Connecticut were surveyed about their pastoral care activities. Factor analysis revealed two separate sets of problems presented in pastoral counseling, with respect to clergy's ratings of their competence to address them. The first factor included grief, death and dying, anxiety, and marital problems, in descending order of frequency. The second factor consisted of depression, alcohol/drugs, domestic violence, severe mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and suicide. Clergy were significantly less confident of their ability to deal with Factor 2 problems, yet clergy rarely consulted with mental-health professionals about either type of problem. Less than half of the clergy had training in Clinical Pastoral Education, but those who did tended to feel they were more competent to deal with both types of problems. On average, clergy devoted 3.7 hours per week to visiting patients and nearly 55% said they were "definitely more likely" to refer a patient to a hospital with a pastoral care department.

show abstract

Awareness of a community mental health center among three “gatekeeper” groups

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Assessing a CMHC's impact: Resident and gatekeeper awareness of center services

Assessing a CMHC's impact: Resident and gatekeeper awareness of center services

Evaluating community awareness of a community mental health center

A Study of Pastoral Care, Referral, and Consultation Practices Among Clergy in Four Settings in the New York City Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About