‘Still living with it even though it's gone’: Using interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore shared experiences of living with and beyond breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer

© 2021 The Authors. Purpose Living with and beyond cancer is an increasingly common experience. While research is uncovering valuable individual experiences of those living with and beyond cancer, it has been argued that this idiographic approach is limited in outlook, reach and impact. This study contributes to the understanding of what it means to live with and beyond cancer by complementing idiographic knowledge with multiple perspectives from a group of participants who are living with and beyond cancer, to explore how individual experiences may be relevant to others. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had received treatment for breast (n = 6), prostate (n = 6) or colorectal cancer (n = 6). Data were analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The early findings were then shared with a wider group of people who had received treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer (n = 26) in six focus groups, to explore whether they had similar experiences. Results While individual accounts of living with and beyond cancer detail unique features specific to each person's experience, focus group discussions illustrated how participant life worlds interact and overlap. The findings identified thematic similarities within and between individual and group levels and across cancer types. Three super-ordinate themes describe the shared experience of living with and beyond cancer: i) the cancer shock, ii) managing cancer and getting through and iii) getting over cancer. Conclusions A multiple perspective approach informs our understanding of shared experiences of living with and beyond cancer. This knowledge can be used to direct, design, and deliver relevant supportive cancer care.Macmillan cancer support

Recovery practice in community mental health teams: national survey

Background There is consensus about the importance of ‘recovery’ in mental health services, but the link between recovery orientation of mental health teams and personal recovery of individuals has been underresearched. Aims To investigate differences in team leader, clinician and service user perspectives of recovery orientation of community adult mental health teams in England. Method In six English mental health National Health Service (NHS) trusts, randomly chosen community adult mental health teams were surveyed. A random sample of ten patients, one team leader and a convenience sample of five clinicians were surveyed from each team. All respondents rated the recovery orientation of their team using parallel versions of the Recovery Self Assessment (RSA). In addition, service users also rated their own personal recovery using the Questionnaire about Processes of Recovery (QPR). Results Team leaders (n = 22) rated recovery orientation higher than clinicians (n = 109) or patients (n = 120) (Wald(2) = 7.0, P = 0.03), and both NHS trust and team type influenced RSA ratings. Patient-rated recovery orientation was a predictor of personal recovery (b = 0.58, 95% CI 0.31–0.85, P50.001). Team leaders and clinicians with experience of mental illness (39%) or supporting a family member or friend with mental illness (76%) did not differ in their RSA ratings from other team leaders or clinicians. Conclusions Compared with team leaders, frontline clinicians and service users have less positive views on recovery orientation. Increasing recovery orientation may support personal recovery

The Relationship between Therapeutic Alliance and Service User Satisfaction in Mental Health Inpatient Wards and Crisis House Alternatives: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background Poor service user experiences are often reported on mental health inpatient wards. Crisis houses are an alternative, but evidence is limited. This paper investigates therapeutic alliances in acute wards and crisis houses, exploring how far stronger therapeutic alliance may underlie greater client satisfaction in crisis houses. Methods and Findings Mixed methods were used. In the quantitative component, 108 crisis house and 247 acute ward service users responded to measures of satisfaction, therapeutic relationships, informal peer support, recovery and negative events experienced during the admission. Linear regressions were conducted to estimate the association between service setting and measures, and to model the factors associated with satisfaction. Qualitative interviews exploring therapeutic alliances were conducted with service users and staff in each setting and analysed thematically. Results We found that therapeutic alliances, service user satisfaction and informal peer support were greater in crisis houses than on acute wards, whilst self-rated recovery and numbers of negative events were lower. Adjusted multivariable analyses suggest that therapeutic relationships, informal peer support and negative experiences related to staff may be important factors in accounting for greater satisfaction in crisis houses. Qualitative results suggest factors that influence therapeutic alliances include service user perceptions of basic human qualities such as kindness and empathy in staff and, at service level, the extent of loss of liberty and autonomy. Conclusions and Implications We found that service users experience better therapeutic relationships and higher satisfaction in crisis houses compared to acute wards, although we cannot exclude the possibility that differences in service user characteristics contribute to this. This finding provides some support for the expansion of crisis house provision. Further research is needed to investigate why acute ward service users experience a lack of compassion and humanity from ward staff and how this could be changed

Staff understanding of recovery-orientated mental health practice: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background: Mental health policy is for staff to transform their practice towards a recovery orientation. Staff understanding of recovery-orientated practice will influence the implementation of this policy. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of empirical studies identifying clinician and manager conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice. Methods: A systematic review of empirical primary research was conducted. Data sources were online databases (n = 8), journal table of contents (n = 5), internet, expert consultation (n = 13), reference lists of included studies and references to included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to integrate the findings. Results: A total of 10,125 studies were screened, 245 full papers were retrieved, and 22 were included (participants, n = 1163). The following three conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice were identified: clinical recovery, personal recovery and service-defined recovery. Service-defined recovery is a new conceptualisation which translates recovery into practice according to the goals and financial needs of the organisation. Conclusions: Organisational priorities influence staff understanding of recovery support. This influence is leading to the emergence of an additional meaning of recovery. The impact of service-led approaches to operationalising recovery-orientated practice has not been evaluated. Trial Registration: The protocol for the review was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005942)

Consumer and staff perspectives of the implementation frequency and value of recovery and wellbeing oriented practices

Background: Despite advances in our understanding of what mental health systems and services can do to enhance recovery and wellbeing outcomes for people seeking support, there is limited evidence demonstrating that this body of work has translated successfully into mental health service practice. The Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) is a practice framework that has been designed to support application of recovery and wellbeing oriented principles and practices within mental health service delivery. The aims of this study were to assess consumer and staff perceptions of implementation frequency during service engagement and the value of this approach for assisting recovery within a setting where the CRM approach had been adopted. Methods: The setting was a large Australian community managed mental health organisation. The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of consumer (n = 116) and staff practitioner (n = 62) perspectives. A series of paired sample t-tests assessed for differences between consumer and staff perceptions of the: (i) importance of key practice elements for assisting recovery, and the (ii) frequency that key practice elements are utilised during engagement sessions. Spearman\u27s r correlational analysis explored associations between importance, frequency and helpfulness of sessions. Results: Key practice elements of the model were applied during service interactions at a high level and perceived by the majority of consumers and staff participants as being important or very important for assisting recovery. Significant moderate correlations were found between the extent that practice elements were valued and the level at which they were applied. Higher levels of implementation of CRM practices were associated with higher ratings of perceived session helpfulness. The strongest association was between \u27encouragement to set tasks to complete between support visits\u27 and perceived helpfulness. Conclusions: Consumer and staff responses revealed that the key practice elements of the CRM were frequently implemented during service engagement interactions and were seen as valuable for assisting recovery. The level of agreement between raters suggests firstly, that the key practice elements were apparent and able to be rated as occurring, and secondly that the CRM approach is seen as responsive to consumer needs. The results have implications for translating recovery and wellbeing oriented knowledge into mental health service practice

REFOCUS: developing a recovery focus in mental health services in England

Background: Recovery in mental health services is defined as living a satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even with any limitations caused by illness. An evidence base for understanding and supporting recovery is needed.Objectives: To carry out a programme of linked research studies to understand how mental health services can promote recovery.Design: A two phase, mixed methods study. Phase 1 (theory) involved seven systematic reviews (develop a conceptual framework for recovery; establish its cross-cultural validity; develop a recovery practice framework; review measures of recovery measures; recovery support measures; strengths measures; staff understanding of recovery), development and evaluation of three new measures (INSPIRE for recovery support; IOM for individualised measurement of recovery; SAFE for feasibility assessment), evaluation of existing recovery measure (QPR), national survey, three qualitative studies (conceptual framework validation, staff recoveryoriented practice, black service users), and development of a new manualised REFOCUS intervention. Phase 2 involved a two-site cluster randomised controlled trial of the REFOCUS intervention, with a nested secondary outcome study, process and economic evaluation, interrupted time series analysis, sub-group analysis of black service users, and outcomes comparison. The impact of PPI on the programme was also empirically evaluated.Setting: Six mental health Trusts in England.Participants: 741 community mental health service users, 1,169 mental health staff and 54 expert stakeholders.Interventions: The manualised team-level REFOCUS intervention to increase support for personal recovery.Main outcome measures: Survey: Recovery Self Assessment (RSA). Trial: Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ).Results: Phase 1: the conceptual framework for recovery identified characteristics, stages and processes of recovery. It was cross-culturally valid and applicable to current service users. The recovery practice framework identified four domains of recovery support. INSPIRE, SAFE and IOM were developed and evaluated. The national survey identified differences between team managers (n=22), workers (n=120) and service users (n=108), and found higher recovery orientation was associated with improved recovery. The REFOCUS intervention has two elements: recovery promoting relationships and working practices. Phase 2: the 27-team trial involving 403 service users (297 at follow-up) showed no differences on primary outcomes of QPR (adjusted difference 0.63, 95%CI: -1.4 to 2.3, p=.55), but secondary outcomes of functioning (adjusted difference 5.90, 95%CI 2.6 to 9.2,

Study protocol: cross-national comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination (COCAPP).

BACKGROUND: The collaborative care planning study (COCAPP) is a cross-national comparative study of care planning and coordination in community mental healthcare settings. The context and delivery of mental health care is diverging between the countries of England and Wales whilst retaining points of common interest, hence providing a rich geographical comparison for research. Across England the key vehicle for the provision of recovery-focused, personalised, collaborative mental health care is the care programme approach (CPA). The CPA is a form of case management introduced in England in 1991, then revised in 2008. In Wales the CPA was introduced in 2003 but has now been superseded by The Mental Health (Care Co-ordination and Care and Treatment Planning) (CTP) Regulations (Mental Health Measure), a new statutory framework. In both countries, the CPA/CTP requires providers to: comprehensively assess health/social care needs and risks; develop a written care plan (which may incorporate risk assessments, crisis and contingency plans, advanced directives, relapse prevention plans, etc.) in collaboration with the service user and carer(s); allocate a care coordinator; and regularly review care. The overarching aim of this study is to identify and describe the factors that ensure CPA/CTP care planning and coordination is personalised, recovery-focused and conducted collaboratively. METHODS/DESIGN: COCAPP will employ a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies. Phase 1 (Macro-level) will consider the national context through a meta-narrative mapping (MNM) review of national policies and the relevant research literature. Phase 2 (Meso-level and Micro-level) will include in-depth micro-level case studies of everyday 'frontline' practice and experience with detailed qualitative data from interviews and reviews of individual care plans. This will be nested within larger meso-level survey datasets, senior-level interviews and policy reviews in order to provide potential explanations and understanding. DISCUSSION: COCAPP will help identify the key components that support and hinder the provision of personalised, recovery-focused care planning and provide an informed rationale for a future planned intervention and evaluation