Consensus building to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness: a qualitative outcome mapping study

BMC Health Services Research

Steve Kisely²  Michelle Denton¹  Nicolette Frey¹  Elizabeth Kendall¹  Carolyn Ehrlich¹ 

[1]Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation, Menzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University, Logan Campus, Meadowbrook 4131, QLD, Australia

[2]School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, Brisbane 4101, QLD, Australia

关键词: Generating solutions;    Planning;    Action pathways;    Wicked issues;    Interdependent action;    Integration;    Nominal group technique;   

Others  :  1137122
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-015-0744-0

 received in 2014-07-23, accepted in 2015-02-13,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The poor physical health of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is often attributed to lifestyle, disease-related medication side effects and disparate provision of healthcare. The complexity and inexact nature of this issue prohibits the identification of a clear and concise causal pathway, which in turn leads to uncertainty and imprecision about the most appropriate action to address the problem. One proposed solution is to integrate care across multiple organisations and sectors through collaborative processes. The objective of this study was to identify collective pathways of action that were consensually developed and which could be initiated by clinicians to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness.

Methods

Eighteen participants from a service catchment area in Australia were involved in a consensus-building workshop. This resulted in participants identifying and committing to a range of collaborative actions and processes to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness. Consensus building was combined with an outcome mapping process, which has previously been used to facilitate health system integration. Data from the consensus-building workshop were thematically analysed and used to create an outcome map.

Results

Participants identified that accessible, continuous, holistic, consumer-driven, recovery-oriented care was required if improved physical health of people with SMI were to be achieved. However, this all-encompassing care was dependant on a wide-ranging philosophical shift in two areas, namely societal stigma and the dominance of pharmacological approaches to care. Participants believed that this shift was contingent on the attitude and behaviours of healthcare professionals and would require an inclusive, networked approach to care delivery and maximal utilization of existing funding.

Conclusions

Rarely do multiple stakeholders from different sectors within the healthcare system have the opportunity to come together and create a collective vision for improving the health of a specific population in a defined area. We used a consensus building approach to generate solutions, actions and goal statements, which were then used to create a visual map that provided a purpose and signposts for action, thereby maximising the potential for cohesive action across sectors.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Ehrlich et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Skaburskis A: The origin of “wicked problems”. Plann Theory Pract. 2008, 9:277-80.
• [2]Phillips RJ: Physical disorder in 164 consecutive admissions to a mental hospital: the incidence and significance. BMJ 1937, 2:363-366.
• [3]Hardy S: Training practice nurses to improve the physical health of patients with severe mental illness: Effects on beliefs and attitudes. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2012, 20:259-65.
• [4]Scott D, Happell B: The High Prevalence of Poor Physical Health and Unhealthy Lifestyle Behaviours in Individuals with Severe Mental Illness. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2011, 35:589-97.
• [5]McCloughen A, Foster K, Huws-Thomas M, Delgado C: Physical health and wellbeing of emerging and young adults with mental illness: An integrative review of international literature. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2012, 21(3):274-88.
• [6]Leucht S, Burkard S, Henderson J, Maj M, Sartorius N: Physical illness and schizophrenia: a review of the literature. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007, 116:317-33.
• [7]Lawrence D, Kisely S: Inequalities in healthcare provision for people with severe mental illness. J Psychoparmacol. 2010, 24:61-8.
• [8]Robson D, Gray R: Serious mental illness and physical health problems A discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007, 44:457-66.
• [9]Lawrence D, Kisely S, Pais J: The epidemiology of excess mortality in people with mental illness. Can J Psychiatry. 2010, 55:752-60.
• [10]Commonwealth of Australia. Fourth National Mental Health Plan: an agenda for collaborative govenment action in mental health 2009–2014. 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/9A5A0E8BDFC55D3BCA257BF0001C1B1C/$File/plan09v2.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
• [11]Hannigan B, Coffey M: Where the wicked problems are: the case of mental health. Health Policy. 2011, 101:220-7.
• [12]Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Welch V, Ueffing E, Kristjansson E, Armstrong R, et al.: Better evidence about wicked issues in tackling health inequities. J Public Health. 2009, 31:453-6.
• [13]Commonwealth of Australia. Tackling wicked problems: a public policy perspective. 2009. http://www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/6386/wickedproblems.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
• [14]Henderson J, Fuller J: ‘Problematising’ Australian policy representations in responses to the physical health of people with mental health disorders. Aust J Soc Issues 2011, 46:183-203.
• [15]Kodner DL, Spreeuwenberg C: Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications - a discussion paper. Int J Integrated Care. 2002, 2:1-6.
• [16]Roberts N. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. In: International Public Management Review. 2000. p. 1–19.
• [17]Rittel HWJ, Webber MM: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 1973, 4(2):155-69.
• [18]Tsasis P, Evans JM, Forrest D, Jones RK: Outcome mapping for health system integration. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013, 6:99-107.
• [19]Innes JE, Booher DE: Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. J Am Plann Assoc. 1999, 65:412-23.
• [20]Winch GW: Consensus building in the planning process: benefits from a “hard” modeling approach. Syst Dyn Rev. 1993, 9:287-300.
• [21]Moody DL: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng. 2005, 55:243-76.
• [22]Halcomb E, Davidson P, Hardaker L: Using the consensus development conference method in healthcare research. Nurse Res. 2008, 16:56-71.
• [23]Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984, 74:979-83.
• [24]Jones J, Hunter D: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J. 1995, 311:376-80.
• [25]Ryan GW, Bernard HR: Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods. 2003, 15:85-109.
• [26]Thurmond VA: The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001, 33:253-8.
• [27]Glaser BG: The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965, 12(4):436-45.
• [28]Keast R, Mandell MP, Brown K, Woolcock G: Network structures: working differently and changing expectations. Public Adm Rev. 2004, 64:363-71.
• [29]Le Boutillier C, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Davidson L, Williams J, Slade M: What does recovery mean in practice? A qualitative anlaysis of international recovery-oriented practice guidance. Psychiatr Serv 2011, 62(12):1470-6.
• [30]Borg M, Karlsson B, Kim HS: User involvement in community mental health services - principles and practices. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2009, 16:285-92.
• [31]Weber EP, Khademian AM: Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builder in network settings. Public Adm Rev. 2008, 68:334-49.
• [32]Armitage GD, Suter E, Oelke ND, Adair CE: Health systems integration: state of the evidence. Int J Integrated Care. 2009, 9:1-11.
• [33]Elvidge J: Tackling the wicked issues. Publ Policy Adm. 2007, 22:475-8.
• [34]VanDeusen LC, Holmes SK, Cohen AB, Restuccia J, Cramer IE, Shwartz M, et al.: Transformational change in health care systems: An organizational model. Health Care Manage Rev. 2007, 32:309-20.
• [35]Riley WJ, Parsons HM, Duffy GL, Moran JW, Hendry B: Realizing transformation change through quality improvement in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010, 16:72-8.
• [36]Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al.: Changing provider behavior: An overview os systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001, 39:II2-45.
• [37]May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. In: Implementation Science. 2013.
• [38]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004, 82:581-629.
• [39]Weiner BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. In: Implementation Science, vol. 4. 2009.