Publication Cover
Advances in Mental Health
Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention
Volume 17, 2019 - Issue 2
408
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Outcome measurement in Australian non-government organisations: a descriptive study of recovery-based mental health workers’ experiences and beliefs

ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 98-109 | Received 04 Oct 2017, Accepted 21 Jun 2018, Published online: 02 Jul 2018
 

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to explore and gain an understanding of Australian non-government mental health staff experiences of outcome measurement. The project sought to learn if non-clinical staff share key issues raised by clinical staff, what challenges are faced using outcome measurement in non-government settings, and how outcome measurement benefits practice.

Method: Individuals were recruited between 2016 and 2017 from recovery-oriented non-government organisations using outcome measurement practices. Utilising a phenomenological perspective, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 12 participants. Service characteristics, recovery, and experiences of outcome measurement processes, feasibility, and tool properties were explored.

Results: Initial data provided context of employing organisations, the practicing philosophies, and outcome tools used by participants. Four thematic areas were identified from the analysis of participant transcripts, (i) the mixed views and beliefs about outcome measurement, (ii) the standing of tool validity, (iii) wide use of flexible practices and (iv) the value and importance of training and support.

Discussion: This non-comparative study found that non-clinical mental health staff shared some feasibility issues with clinical staff, however, they also presented new issues and new ways of using outcome measurement tools. Future research should continue to document non-government organisation staff experiences of outcome measurement to improve practice and culture.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Griffith University School of Human Services and Social Work Honours and Masters Financial Support, under the School of Human Services and Social Work Honours and Masters Financial Support (HSV1010).

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 562.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.