Process research: Compare and contrast the recovery-orientated strengths model of case management and usual community mental health care

Samson TSE, Sau Man Catalina NG, Winnie W. Y. YUEN, Iris W. K. LO, Sadaaki FUKUI, Richard J. GOSCHA, Eppie WAN, Stephen WONG, Sau-Kam CHAN

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlespeer-review

Abstract

Background: The strengths model of case management (SMCM), which was developed by Rapp and Goscha through collaborative efforts at the University of Kansas, assists individuals with mental illness in their recovery by mobilizing individual and environmental resources. Increasing evidence has shown that the utilization of the SMCM improves outcomes, including increased employment/educational attainment, reduced hospitalization rates, higher self-efficacy, and hope. However, little is known about the processes through which the SMCM improves outcomes for mental health service users. This study explores the views of case workers and service users on their experience of providing or receiving the SMCM intervention.
Methods: A qualitative design was employed using individual interviews with service users and case workers drawn from two study conditions: the SMCM group and the control group (treatment as usual). For both study conditions, service users were recruited by either centres-in-charge or case workers from integrated community centres for mental wellness (ICCMWs) operated by three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in different districts of Hong Kong. Through purposeful sampling, 24 service users and 14 case workers from the SMCM and control groups joined the study. We used an inductive approach to analyse the qualitative data.
Results: We identified two overarching themes: service users’ and case workers’ (1) perceptions of the impacts of the interventions (SMCM and control group) and (2) experiences of the interventions, such as features of the interventions and the factors that facilitated the outcomes. The results showed that there were improvements in the functional recovery of the SMCM group in areas such as employment and family relationships, how self-identified goals were achieved, and how service users gained a better understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses. Regarding their experience of the interventions, participants in both the SMCM group and the control group reported that a good relationship between service users and case workers was vital. However, some concerns were raised about the use of SMCM tools, including the strengths assessment and the personal recovery plan (PRP) and the risk of case workers being subjective in the presentation of cases in group supervision sessions.
Conclusion: The results were promising in terms of supporting the use of the SMCM, with some refinements, in mental health services for Chinese clients.
Trial registration: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617001435370, registered on 10/10/2017. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s).
Original languageEnglish
Article number534
JournalBMC Psychiatry
Volume21
Early online date28 Oct 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Citation

Tse, S., Ng, C. S. M., Yuen, W. W. Y., Lo, I. W. K., Fukui, S., Goscha, R. J., . . . Chan, S.-K. (2021). Process research: Compare and contrast the recovery-orientated strengths model of case management and usual community mental health care. BMC Psychiatry, 21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03523-5

Keywords

  • Strengths intervention
  • Process evaluation
  • Mental health
  • Recovery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Process research: Compare and contrast the recovery-orientated strengths model of case management and usual community mental health care'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.