Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation

Stratton, Peter; Bland, Julia; Janes, Emma; Lask, Judith

doi:10.1037/t72476-000

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…anxiety and depressive symptoms), subjective wellbeing and global functioning (Twigg et al, 2009). YP-CORE10 scores indicated that the majority of young people who accessed the Hub experienced a benefit, with the severity of their reported The systemic clinical outcome and routine evaluation-15 (SCORE15; Stratton et al, 2010) is the outcome measure used by the Hub to assess young people's reported levels of family functioning and the higher the scores obtained on this measure are, the worst the individual rates their family functioning (Stratton et al, 2014). The comparison between the scores obtained by service users when accessing the Hub (M ¼ 43.9, SD ¼ 7.3) and the ones obtained at discharge from the service (M ¼ 31.25, SD ¼ 13.2) indicate an improvement in young people's perception of their family life.…”

Section: Routine Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Friendly, local and welcoming” – evaluation of a community mental health early intervention service

Parry

Eve

Stamou

et al. 2023

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Half of adulthood mental health challenges begin by the age of 14-years-old, making the need for early-intervention clear. This study aims to evaluate a new service model that promotes early-intervention through a community based low-intensity Hub. Design/methodology/approach Clinical data from 2,384 young people were analysed through within-group, pre- and post-comparisons and qualitative survey, and interview data was analysed through content analysis. Findings Overall, participants reported that they were highly satisfied with the Hub and the low-intensity brief interventions met their needs. Participants reported that learning new skills, having a place to talk and positive therapeutic relationships were beneficial. The Hub appeared to be less successful for young people with complex mental health difficulties. As a service, the adoption of the Hub model reduced waiting list times by more than half. Research limitations/implications The quantitative data demonstrated that engaging with the Hub reduced symptoms of psychological distress. Qualitative analyses suggest that access to local, community, welcoming and “less clinical” support was beneficial, and the type of brief interventions offered was less important than therapeutic relationships. Originality/value This is the first study of a novel “Hub” model for low-intensity brief interventions in a socio-economically deprived area of England. Local knowledge, community integrated support, therapeutic relationships and a welcoming environment were viewed as more beneficial than the type of brief interventions offered. Consequently, community spaces can be created to be therapeutic and beneficial for mental health outside of a traditional conceptualisation of clinical support.

show abstract

Section: Routine Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%