Exploring the Experience of a Strengths-Based Approach within a Forensic Service

Figures & data

Table 1. Mean, median, mode and range of response scores across groups A-D to survey statements.

Statement Number	Statement	Mean	Median	Mode	Range
1	I felt listened to and involved in decisions around my/ the service user’s care.	4.2	4	4	2–5
2	I was provided with enough time and space to consider my/ the service user’s needs and risks in relation to my support plan	4	4	4	2–5
3	We discussed my/the service user’s strengths and needs related to living in the community	4	4	4	2–5
4	Family, friends or carers had the opportunity to be involved in the meetings if I/ the service user wanted them to be	3.8	4	4	1–5
5	ATT provided support which was useful to my/ the service user’s discharge from hospital and to the development of community living skills	4.2	4	4	3–5
6	I/ the service user was supported to make links with the local community that met my/ the service user’s strengths and needs (like voluntary work, sport, hobbies, substance misuse services, etc).	3.8	4	3	3–5
7	I/ the service user was provided support that helped my/ the service user’s discharge from hospital.	4.3	4	4	3–5
8	Support from ATT helped me/ the service user feel more stable and safe in the community.	4	4	4	3–5
9	ATT provided me/ the service user support to plan residential placements which were sensitive to my/ the service user’s strengths and risks	3.8	4	4	2–5

Figure 1. Frequency of Likert scale response types across survey statements in service user participant group.

Figure 2. Frequency of Likert scale response types across survey statements in carer participant group.

Figure 3. Frequency of Likert scale response types across survey statements in health professional participant group.

Figure 4. Frequency of Likert scale response types across survey statements in accommodation provider participant group.

Figure 5. Thematic map of free-text response findings.