The Strengths Model in Hong Kong

Mental health practice involves the continuous process of learning and refinement, especially when practitioners focus on the strengths and aspirations of individuals who are coping with serious mental illnesses (Tse et al., 2016). Cross-cultural considerations include beliefs, language, the role of social support, and the distinctive characteristics of specific communities that require localization in designing and offering mental health services. In this chapter, we describe the experience of adopting the Strengths Model in Hong Kong, starting with an introduction to the mental health system in the city. We then illustrate the development and implementation of the Strengths Model for the Chinese population in Hong Kong. We also briefly review research studies focusing on the Strengths Model in mental health practice in this cultural context (Tsoi et al., 2018; Tsoi, Tse, Canda, & Lo, 2019; Tse et al., 2019). The process of localization described in this chapter required the building of complex relationships among Strengths Model founders, scholars, organizations, caseworkers, and people facing mental health challenges

Process research: compare and contrast the recovery-orientated strengths model of case management and usual community mental health care

Background: The strengths model of case management (SMCM), which was developed by Rapp and Goscha through collaborative efforts at the University of Kansas, assists individuals with mental illness in their recovery by mobilizing individual and environmental resources. Increasing evidence has shown that the utilization of the SMCM improves outcomes, including increased employment/educational attainment, reduced hospitalization rates, higher self-efficacy, and hope. However, little is known about the processes through which the SMCM improves outcomes for mental health service users. This study explores the views of case workers and service users on their experience of providing or receiving the SMCM intervention. Methods: A qualitative design was employed using individual interviews with service users and case workers drawn from two study conditions: the SMCM group and the control group (treatment as usual). For both study conditions, service users were recruited by either centres-in-charge or case workers from integrated community centres for mental wellness (ICCMWs) operated by three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in different districts of Hong Kong. Through purposeful sampling, 24 service users and 14 case workers from the SMCM and control groups joined the study. We used an inductive approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results: We identified two overarching themes: service users' and case workers' (1) perceptions of the impacts of the interventions (SMCM and control group) and (2) experiences of the interventions, such as features of the interventions and the factors that facilitated the outcomes. The results showed that there were improvements in the functional recovery of the SMCM group in areas such as employment and family relationships, how self-identified goals were achieved, and how service users gained a better understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses. Regarding their experience of the interventions, participants in both the SMCM group and the control group reported that a good relationship between service users and case workers was vital. However, some concerns were raised about the use of SMCM tools, including the strengths assessment and the personal recovery plan (PRP) and the risk of case workers being subjective in the presentation of cases in group supervision sessions. Conclusion: The results were promising in terms of supporting the use of the SMCM, with some refinements, in mental health services for Chinese clients

Supplemental Material, Appendix_Trend_Checklist - A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial of Strengths Model Case Management in Hong Kong

<p>Supplemental Material, Appendix_Trend_Checklist for A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial of Strengths Model Case Management in Hong Kong by Emily W. S. Tsoi, Samson Tse, Chong-Ho Yu, Sau-Kam Chan, Eppie Wan, Stephen Wong, and Lucia Liu in Research on Social Work Practice</p

Randomised Controlled Trial Evaluating the Strengths Model Case Management in Hong Kong

Objectives: Strengths-based approaches to case management for people with mental illness have been widely used in Western countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Strengths Model Case Management (SMCM) among mental health clients in Hong Kong. Method: Two hundred and nine service clients were recruited from three Integrated Community Centres. Multiple measures related to recovery progress (e.g., Recovery Assessment Scale) were reported by both the clients and caseworkers before intervention and at 6 and12 months post-recruitment. Results and conclusion: Although there were no significant differences in improvement of most outcomes between the SMCM and control groups, the recovery scores of the SMCM group remained stable over time regardless of age, and also middle-aged participants (i.e., 40–59 years old) in the SMCM group achieved higher recovery scores over time than those in the control group. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN) 12617001435370

Randomised controlled trial evaluating the strengths model case management in Hong Kong

Objectives: Strengths-based approaches to case management for people with mental illness have been widely used in Western countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Strengths Model Case Management (SMCM) among mental health clients in Hong Kong. Method: Two hundred and nine service clients were recruited from three Integrated Community Centres. Multiple measures related to recovery progress (e.g., Recovery Assessment Scale) were reported by both the clients and caseworkers before intervention and at 6 and12 months post-recruitment. Results and conclusion: Although there were no significant differences in improvement of most outcomes between the SMCM and control groups, the recovery scores of the SMCM group remained stable over time regardless of age, and also middle-aged participants (i.e., 40–59 years old) in the SMCM group achieved higher recovery scores over time than those in the control group. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN) 12617001435370