Partners in Recovery: an early phase evaluation of an Australian mental health initiative using program logic and thematic analysis

Abstract

Background Mental illness is a leading cause of illness and disability and around 75% of people suffering mental illness do not have access to adequate care. In Australia, nearly half the population experiences mental illness at some point in their life. The Australian Government developed a National program called Partners in Recovery (PIR) to support those with severe and persistent mental illness. The program was implemented through 48 consortia across Australia. One of these was led by the Nepean Blue Mountains Medicare Local who adapted the program according to its specific local needs. Methods We conducted an early evaluation of the PIR program in Nepean Blue Mountains (NBMPIR) using a program logic model (PLM) to frame the evaluation and complemented this with an additional thematic analysis. Participants ( n = 73) included clients and carers, program management and staff of the Consortium and other partners and agencies, and clinical, allied health, and other service providers. Our PLM utilised multiple data sources that included document review, open and closed survey questions, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data received a descriptive analysis and qualitative data was analysed both in alignment with the PLM framework and inductively. Results We aligned our results to PLM domains of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. The NBMPIR consortium implemented a recovery approach and provided greater access to services by enhancing healthcare provider partnerships. Our thematic analysis further described five key themes of collaboration; communication; functioning of PIR; structural/organisational challenges; and understanding of PIR approaches. Facilitators and barriers to the NBMPIR program centred on the alignment of vision and purpose; building an efficient system; getting the message out and sharing information; understanding roles and support and training of staff; building capacity and systems change; addressing service gaps; and engaging peers. Conclusions Our study provided helpful insights into the coordinated management of complex mental illness. The NBMPIR’s focus on partnerships and governance, service coordination, and systems change has relevance for others engaged in this work. This PLM effectively mapped the program, including its processes and resources, and is a useful framework providing a baseline for future evaluations. Full report available at https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:33977/ Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4360-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review

“…Scoping review methodology has been recognized as a valid and insightful means to synthesize evidence in healthcare and various other areas of research with little prior evidence 50–52 . Framework analyses is an established method for organizing data 20 , 21 and has been previously applied to develop conceptual frameworks in healthcare 53 or reporting frameworks in other fields 54 , 55 . Synthesis was conducted by two independent experienced reviewers with input from a multidisciplinary team consisting of methodologists, health services researchers and surgeons to ensure rigour.…”

“I thought it would just be, like, older men in white coats”: A qualitative exploration of first encounters with mental health services

“…In Ireland—where the current study was conducted—prolonged access to care as a consequence of lengthy waiting lists and administrative issues is a well‐established issue (Begley et al, 2003; Lynch & Hedderman, 2006; Tobin, 2007). However, this is not unique to Ireland—in several countries, including the UK (Crouch et al, 2019; Punton et al, 2022), Australia (Pienkos & Bush, 2022; Trankle & Reath, 2019), and Canada (Duncan et al, 2022; Gaspar et al, 2021), service users have identified similar barriers to timely access to appropriate professional mental health supports. Of note, Larsson et al (2022) and Molodynski et al (2021) have highlighted that prolonged service access has been even further impacted in light of the COVID‐19 pandemic.…”

Integrating recovery-oriented and realistic evaluation principles into an evaluation of a Partners in Recovery programme

“…Numerous evaluations of other PIR initiatives have recently been undertaken, each adopting different approaches and methods in accordance with local needs and expectations (see, for example, Cheverton & Janamian, 2016; Hancock et al, 2018; Trankle & Reath, 2019). The incorporation of realistic evaluation principles which integrate recovery-oriented principles and practices in this evaluation, however, offers a unique perspective.…”