How do users with comorbidity perceive participation in social services? A qualitative interview study

References

• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askheim, O. P., Christensen, K., Fluge, S., & Guldvik, I. (2017). User participation in the Norwegian welfare context: An analysis of policy discourses. Journal of Social Policy, 46(3), 583–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bee, P., Price, O., Baker, J., & Lovell, K. (2015). Systematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to service user-led care planning. British Journal of Psychiatry, 207(2), 104–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.152447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beresford, P. (2002). User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation? Social Policy and Society, 1(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746402000222
   Google Scholar
• Beresford, P. (2003). User involvement in research: Exploring the challenges. NT Research, 8(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/136140960300800106
   Google Scholar
• Beresford, P., & Branfield, F. (2006). Developing inclusive partnerships: User-defined outcomes, networking and knowledge–a case study. Health and Social Care in the Community, 14(5), 436–444. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00654.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beresford, P., & Croft, S. (2004). Service Users and Practitioners Reunited: The Key Component for Social Work Reform. British Journal of Social Work, 34(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmark, A., Bergmark, Å., & Lundström, T. (2011). Evidensbaserat socialt arbete: Teori, kritik, praktik. Natur & kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Björk, A. (2016). Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced. Stockholm University.
   Google Scholar
• Blennberger, E. (2017). Etik i socialt arbete: Etisk kod för socialarbetare. Akademikerförbundet SSR.
   Google Scholar
• Brener, L., Resnick, I., Ellard, J., Treloar, C., & Bryant, J. (2009). Exploring the role of consumer participation in drug treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 105(1), 172–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.06.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, S. (2007). Participation, power, conflict and change: Theorizing dynamics of service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales. Critical Social Policy, 27(2), 266–276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018306075717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Denhov, A., & Topor, A. (2012). The components of helping relationships with professionals in psychiatry: Users’ perspective. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 58(4), 417–424. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764011406811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekendahl, M., & Karlsson, P. (2016). The user in Swedish abstinence-oriented opioid substitution therapy: A closer look at how user involvement bears upon policy formation. In A. O’Gorman, G. R. Potter, & J. Fountain (Eds.), Evidence in European social drug research and drug policy (pp. 51–67). Pabst Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Eldh, A. C., & Winblad, U. (2018). Patientdelaktighet -: Dåtid, nutid och framtid. In A. C. Eldh (Ed.), Delaktighet och patientmedverkan (pp. Studentlitteratur). Lund.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, E. (2015). Sanktionerat motstånd: Brukarinflytande som fenomen och praktik. Lunds universitet, Socialhögskolan.
   Google Scholar
• Friedrichs, A., Silkens, A., Reimer, J., Kraus, L., Scherbaum, N., Piontek, D., Röhrig, J., Hempleman, J., Härter, M., & Buchholz, A. (2018). Role preferences of patients with alcohol use disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 84, 248–254. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist Grounded Theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.825
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Graff, F. S., Morgan, T. J., Epstein, E. E., McCrady, B. S., Cook, S. M., Jensen, N. K., & Kelly, S. (2009). Engagement and retention in outpatient alcoholism treatment for women. American Journal on Addictions, 18(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10550490902925540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J., & McElrath, K. (2012). Methadone as social control: Institutionalized stigma and the prospect of recovery. Qualitative Health Research, 22(6), 810–824. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311432718
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, R. B., Devereaux, P. J., & Guyatt, G. H. (2002). Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324(7350), 1350. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7350.1350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hui, A., & Stickley, T. (2007). Mental health policy and mental health service user perspectives on involvement: A discourse analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04341.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joosten, E., De Jong, C., de Weert-van Oene, G., Sensky, T., & van der Staak, C. (2009). Shared decision-making reduces drug use and psychiatric severity in substance-dependent patients. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78(4), 245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1159/000219524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joosten, E., De Jong, C., de Weert-van Oene, G., Sensky, T., & van der Staak, C. (2011). Shared decision-making: Increases autonomy in substance-dependent patients. Substance Use & Misuse, 46(8), 1037–1038. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2011.552931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson, M., & Börjeson, M. (2011). Brukarmakt - i teori och praktik. Natur & kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Knutsson, O., & Schön, U.-K. (2020). Co-creating a process of user involvement and shared decision-making in coordinated care planning with users and caregivers in social services. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 15(1), 1812270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1812270
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs, I., Richman, M. J., Janka, Z., Maraz, A., & Ando, B. (2017). Decision making measured by the Iowa gambling task in alcohol use disorder and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 152–161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitila, M., Nikkonen, M., & Pietilä, A.-M. (2011). Involvement in mental health and substance abuse work: Conceptions of service users. Nursing Research and Practice, 2011, 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/672474
   Google Scholar
• Laugharne, R., & Priebe, S. (2006). Trust, choice and power in mental health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(11), 843–852. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-006-0123-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, T. T. F., Wong, Y. C., Wong, P. K. S., & Chan, S. K. L. (2020). Administrative buy-in for user participation in managing social services. Journal of Social Service Research, 46(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1537947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, L. (2012). Towards a revised definition of client collaboration: The knowledge–power–politics triad. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2010.545121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebherz, S., Härter, M., Dirmaier, J., & Tlach, L. (2015). Information and decision-making needs among people with anxiety disorders: Results of an online survey. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 8(6), 531–539. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0116-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebherz, S., Tlach, L., Härter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2015). Information and decision-making needs among people with affective disorders - results of an online survey. Patient Preference and Adherence, 9, 627–638. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S78495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Fagundo, A. B., Jimenez-Murcia, S., de la Torre, R., Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Fernández-Aranda, A. B., Fernández-García, J. C., Fernández-Real, J. M., Frühbeck, G., Granero, R., Rodríguez, A., Tolosa-Sola, I., Ortega, F. J., Tinahones, F. J., Alvarez-Moya, E., Ochoa, C., Menchón, J. M., Fernández-Aranda, F., & Casanueva, F. (2016). Decision making impairment: A shared vulnerability in obesity, gambling disorder and substance use disorders? PloS One, 11(9), e0163901. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marttila, A., Johansson, E., Whitehead, M., & Burström, B. (2012). Dilemmas in providing resilience-enhancing social services to long-term social assistance clients. A qualitative study of Swedish social workers. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 517. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-517
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nehlin, C., Willebrand, M., Brander, C. W., & Öster, C. (2020). Overcoming heroin addiction without the use of pharmaceuticals: A qualitative interview study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 3(52), 1–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1755478
   Google Scholar
• Nykänen, P. (2020). Shared decision making in the social services? Reasons to consider when choosing methods for service user participation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(2), 569–574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Crawford, M. J., & Fulop, N. (2004). Patients or partners? Case studies of user involvement in the planning and delivery of adult mental health services in London. Social Science & Medicine, 58(10), 1973–1984. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00401-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlsten, M. J. M., Larsson, I. E., Sjöström, B., & Plos, K. A. E. (2008). An analysis of the concept of patient participation. Nursing Forum, 43(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2008.00090.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schön, U.-K., Grim, K., Wallin, L., Rosenberg, D., & Svedberg, P. (2018). Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: A process evaluation study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(1), 1421352. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1421352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617
   Google Scholar
• SOU. 2011. 35. Bättre insatser vid missbruk och beroende: Individen, kunskapen och ansvaret: Slutbetänkande. Vol. 1, Missbruksutredningens förslag. Fritze.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, B. W. J., Shields, G., Gergel, T., Hotopf, M., & Owen, G. S. (2017). Diversity or disarray? A systematic review of decision-making capacity for treatment and research in schizophrenia and other non-affective psychoses. Psychological Medicine, 47(11), 1906–1922. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291717000502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spriggs, M. (2003). Can we help addicts become more autonomous? Inside the mind of an addict. Bioethics, 17(5), 542–554. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storbjörk, J., Christophs, I., Samuelsson, E., & Milander Yazdanpanah, S. (2016). A study of service user involvement in practice in the Swedish substance abuse treatment system [Elektronisk resurs] Methods, participants, and outcomes, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Research Council. (n.d.). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Swift, J. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20553
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, A. G. (2007). The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy. Social Science & Medicine, 64(6), 1297–1310. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topor, A., Skogens, L., & von Greiff, N. (2018). Building trust and recovery capital: The professionals’ helpful practice. Advances in Dual Diagnosis, 11(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ADD-11-2017-0022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vedung, E., & Dahlberg, M. (2013). Demokrati och brukarutvärdering. Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar