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

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