Accessible summary It is widely recognized that social inclusion is an important aspect of recovery for mental health service users and mental health nurses have a role to play in this part of care. Social inclusion is not well defined and there is little evidence to demonstrate it produces positive outcomes for service users. We have developed a social inclusion framework to help mental health professionals and service users' co‐produce social inclusive outcomes. We recognize the difficulties of increasing social inclusion and have highlighted some of the social, economic and political barriers that may prevent social inclusive outcomes. It is possible that nurses and others are using much time and energy trying to increase social inclusion, when in fact only governments and other large organizations have the power to make the significant changes required to produce change. Abstract There is a raft of policy guidelines indicating that mental health nurses should be increasing the social inclusion of mental health service users. Despite this there is no universally accepted definition of social inclusion and there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the successful outcome of increasing inclusion for mental health service users. Recognizing the lack of clarity surrounding the concept we have a produced a social inclusion framework to assist mental health professionals and service users to co‐produce social inclusive outcomes. Although we agree that social inclusion can be a positive aspect of recovery, we question the extent to which mental health nurses and service users in co‐production can overcome the social, economic and political structures that have created the social exclusion in the first place. An understanding and appreciation of the structure/agency conundrum is required if mental health nurses are to engage with service users in an attempt to co‐produce socially inclusive outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Audience response systems are typically used with large groups of students, often in lecture theatre settings. This chapter reflects on 10 years of the author’s use of these systems, and provides examples illustrating the way that a variety of ARS, including a wired system and two infrared systems, have been used with small groups. In the examples outlined here, the data from the ARS was used to trigger discussion, rather than being used for multiple-choice “right or wrong” purposes. In the context of this chapter, groups of between 5 and 50 students are considered as “small” to differentiate from “large” lectures with possibly hundreds of students. Given the likely convergence of numeric keypad technology and text entry systems such as PDAs and mobile phones, the use of a larger, text-entry system is also outlined, to show how such systems can be utilized to explore course evaluation issues.

BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer. ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness. Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studies Selection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information. Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.