Introduction The Integrated Recovery Scales (IRS) was developed by the Dutch National Expertise board for routine outcome monitoring with severe mental illnesses. This board aimed to develop a multidimensional recovery measure directed at 1. clinical recovery, 2. physical health, 3. social recovery (work, social contacts, independent living) and 4. existential, personal recovery. The measure had to be short, suited for routine outcome monitoring and present the perspective of both mental health professionals and service users with severe mental illnesses. All aspects are assessed over a period of the pas 6 months. Objectives The objective of this research is validation of the Integral Recovery Scales and to test the revelance for clinical practice and police evaluation. Methods The instrument was tested with 500 individuals with severe mental illnesses (80% individuals with a psychotic disorder), of whom 200 were followed up for 1 year. For the questions concerning clinical recovery, physical health and social recovery mental health care workers conducted semi structured interviews with people living with serious illnesses. The questions concerning personal health were self-rated. We analyzed interrater reliability, convergent and divergent validity and sensitivity to change. Results The instrument has a good validity and is easy to complete for service users and mental health care workers and appropriate for clinical and policy evaluation goals. Conclusions The Integrated Recovery Scales can be a useful instrument for a simple and meaningful routine outcome monitoring. Page: 121
DOCUMENT
Integrating knowledge and expertise from designers and scientists proposes solutions to complex problems in a flexible and open-minded way. However, little insight is available in how this collaboration works. Therefore, we reflected on a research project aimed at supportive care interventions for child oncology, and detected barriers and enablers for effective designer scientist collaboration. We interviewed medical scientists (n=2), designers (n=5), health care professionals (n=2), design students (n=3), and one design innovation-expert. Enablers appeared a receptive attitude towards innovation, and shared terminology facilitated by participatory design tools, internal communication means, and common goals. Largest barrier was unstable team membership. Future collaborative research projects might benefit when preventing barriers and stimulating enablers.
DOCUMENT
Background Parenting a child with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities has great implications. Parents generally rely heavily on healthcare and social welfare services in caring for the child at home. Previous studies indicated mismatch between what parents need to preserve family and personal wellbeing and what is typically provided by services. This study focused on the role of healthcare and social welfare services in childcare and aims to contribute to understanding how parents perceive their interactions with service providers. Methods We interviewed 25 Dutch parents who cared for their child at home. Data were analysed using Framework Method. Findings Two overarching themes were found: “Being the lifeline” addressed that parents had central roles in fragmented services, and “Losing ownership” highlighted that parents were constrained in living life according to own beliefs and values while interacting with providers. Conclusions Findings illuminated that many parents became overburdened and compromised heavily on agency over family thriving due to functioning of healthcare and social welfare services. Findings supported working with integrated family case managers, creating effective and proactive access to equipment and services, and enacting high quality facilities for help with childcare and respite. These are important conditions to enable parents to construct family life more autonomously and make their further contribution to society. This may also lead to improved connotations of dependence on healthcare and social welfare services.
MULTIFILE
