Key dimensions of collaboration quality in mental health care service networks

Nicaise, Pablo; Grard, Adeline; Leys, Mark; Audenhove, Chantal Van; Lorant, Vincent

doi:10.1080/13561820.2019.1709425

Cited by 20 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the field of mental health, coordination between professionals is partly responsible for the structure of the support network; these results might suggest that the organisation of the support network around users is not consistently based on users’ clinical status (i.e., the severity of psychosocial functioning). This is consistent with another study (conducted in the same geographical area) that showed that client-centred orientation was the factor that contributed least to the quality of professional collaboration (Nicaise et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The personal social network of psychiatric service users

Wyngaerden

Tempels

Feys³

et al. 2020

Int J Soc Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: For psychiatric service users, the personal social network offers resources such as behavioural guidance, social support, and coherence of care delivery. So far, most research on the subject has assessed the availability of these resources using size and composition measures. However, the availability of network resources also depends on the cohesion of the relationships between network members, a topic that is rarely addressed in the literature. Aims: In this article, we aim to describe the cohesion of psychiatric service users’ networks. Method: We carried out a personal network survey and collected data on the social networks of 380 service users recruited in outpatient and inpatient services in Belgium. We used an ego-network mapping technique. The data were analysed using several structural metrics describing size, composition, and cohesion. We carried out analysis of variance (ANOVA) in relation to residential status, level of education, psychiatric history, and psychosocial functioning and analysed three cohesion indicators (density, fragmentation, and centralisation) with regression analyses. Results: Personal social networks were small and not very cohesive. Most were composed of a dense subgroup as well as several isolated network members. The analyses revealed that highly educated psychiatric service users had more fragmented networks, while users living in independent accommodation had less dense networks. Density and fragmentation were not associated with the severity of psychosocial functioning, whereas centralisation was. Conclusions: The low level of cohesion may indicate that service users aim to access multiple and diverse social resources and that better-off service users are more successful at doing so. On the whole, however, these personal social networks were fragile, because they contained a high number of isolated network members. Finally, it could be beneficial for professionals to pay special attention to the central persons within the networks of psychiatric service users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The personal social network of psychiatric service users

Wyngaerden

Tempels

Feys³

et al. 2020

Int J Soc Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three policies also showed similarly moderate results. As an illustration, several studies (Grard et al, 2015; Marquis & Susswein, 2020; Mistiaen et al, 2019; Nicaise et al, 2020; Walker et al, 2019) made the same observation: although the policy reform led to certain noteworthy achievements, the intended results were only partially attained, both structurally and ideologically. Regarding the structural aspects, the studies highlighted the persistence of a hospital‐centric approach as well as the fragmentation of care services and the exclusion of certain categories of patients.…”

Section: Contextualizationmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Despite high levels of activity within the new networks and a certain shift in professional cultures and local practices, the prevailing structure of the field seems quite resistant. Several scientific studies have deplored this situation (Grard et al, 2015; Marquis & Susswein, 2020; Mistiaen et al, 2019; Nicaise et al, 2020) but more than 10 years after the launch of the reform, none of them have attempted to understand how the structure has succeeded in resisting the strong political will displayed by the reform's advocates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Belgian mental health reform: When a combination of soft instruments hampers structural change

Darcis

Schoenaers

Thunus³

2022

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Europe, the mental health field is undergoing a paradigm shift from a hospital‐centered, institutionalized and segmented model toward a community‐based, patient‐centered and more integrated model. From 2010 onwards, Belgian policymakers availed themselves of new policy instruments to complete this shift, having been hampered by strong professional and cultural barriers over the four previous decades. However, the reform objectives have only partially been achieved. Assuming that an instrument perspective on policy implementation would illustrate why the reform does not achieve its priority objectives, the article questions the relationship between the types of instruments used and the type of change induced. Drawing on the analysis of three policy implementation processes, we argue that these “soft” instruments are by nature not suitable for initiating any type of change and may have limited effects when used in certain contexts and under certain conditions. The article ends with a discussion of the three limitations of these instruments.

show abstract

“…12,13 The understanding of healthcare-sector specific organizational motives for IOCs and how these relate to the specific institutional context on a meso-level is indispensable in policy development on the macro-level, and to assess effective elements for successful collaboration. 14…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15–18 Few studies have addressed collaboration across different types of healthcare organizations. 14 However, insight into ties within or between health sectors such as long-term care and mental care are important as health systems have become increasingly complex and difficult to understand as a whole. 19,20…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-organizational collaboration between healthcare providers

Schors

Roos

Kemp

et al. 2020

Health Serv Manage Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across OECD countries, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on inter-organizational collaboration (IOC). Yet, systematic insight into the relations across different healthcare sectors is lacking. The aim of this explorative study is twofold. First, to understand how IOC differs across healthcare sectors with regards to characteristics, motives and the role of health policy. Second, to understand which potential effects healthcare executives consider prior to the establishment of the collaborations. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among a representative panel of Dutch healthcare executives from medium-sized or large healthcare organizations. Almost half (n = 344, 48%) of the invited executives participated. Our results suggest that differences in policy changes and institutional developments across healthcare sectors affect the scope and type of IOC: hospitals generally operate in small horizontal collaborations, while larger and more complex mixed and non-horizontal collaborations are more present among nursing homes, disability care and mental care organizations. We find that before establishing IOCs, most healthcare executives conduct a self-assessment including the potential effects of the collaboration. The extensive overview of policy developments, collaboration types and intended outcomes presented in our study offers a useful starting point for a more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of collaborations among healthcare organizations.

show abstract

Key dimensions of collaboration quality in mental health care service networks

Cited by 20 publications

References 44 publications

The personal social network of psychiatric service users

The personal social network of psychiatric service users

The Belgian mental health reform: When a combination of soft instruments hampers structural change

Inter-organizational collaboration between healthcare providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About