澳洲格里菲斯assignment代写:辛普森和众议院

Keywords: 澳洲格里菲斯assignment代写

辛普森和众议院（2002）对精神卫生服务的交付和评估的用户参与进行了系统的回顾。本次审查确定了五个随机对照试验和其他七个比较研究。比较分析通常涉及服务的用户，非服务用户的性能，在类似的角色。一些研究区分用户根据类型和严重程度的精神疾病，或允许的服务参与的量。八研究涉及服务用户作为服务提供商。这通常涉及病人的工作人员或案件管理人员与严重的精神病患者。个案工作者需要聘用病人，协调多机构的支持和帮助，以维持提供有效的健康服务的病人。大多数参与者有严重的精神疾病的历史，或目前正在接受治疗的心理健康问题。大多数用户患有双相情感障碍或精神分裂症。大多数研究比较了患者的表现，或以前的病人，在工人角色的情况下，其他员工没有精神病史。研究结果表明，招聘用户和前用户的情况下，工人没有任何负面影响的患者的症状，心理功能，或生活质量。然而，有一些有益的影响与用户参与。患者的生活质量有一定程度的改善，很少有情绪上的困难和改善的社会功能。一些患者还报告说，他们较少依赖于他们的家庭，并要求较少使用医院服务。用人不影响患者对所接受的心理健康服务的满意度。此外，作为用户进行培训，他们的案例工作的角色，培训人员报告了一个更积极的态度，一般的精神病患者的专业参与他们的后果。在系统评价的所有研究中，只有一项研究是基于英国，绝大多数的研究是基于对美国的医疗保健系统。这可能反映了更积极的态度，在美国医疗服务的用户参与。英国唯一的研究是由木头和Wilson Barnet（1999），它涉及到两组护生在不同的暴露用户告知护理培训的比较研究。学生接受采访，并完成问卷调查，他们对精神疾病的态度，以及用户参与计划。这项研究表明，暴露于更高一级的用户参与的学生，并在早期阶段的训练，表现出更大的同情和更个性化的方法对精神病患者的护理。这项研究只包括一个小样本的29名护士，因此泛化的结果是有限的。
 澳洲格里菲斯assignment代写:辛普森和众议院
Simpson and House (2002) have conducted a systematic review on user involvement in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services. This review identified five randomised controlled trials and seven other comparative studies. Comparative analysis usually involved considering the performance of service users, to non-service users, in similar roles. Some of the studies differentiated users according to type and severity of mental illness, or the amount of service involvement that was permitted. Eight studies examined involving service users as service providers. This usually involved patients working as case workers or case managers with severely mentally ill patients. Case workers needed to engage patients, coordinate multi-agency support and help to preserve the delivery of an effective health service for the patient. Most of the participants had a history of serious mental illness, or were currently undergoing treatment for mental health issues. Most of the users suffered from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Most studies compared the performance of the patients, or former patients, in case worker roles to other employees without a history of mental illness. Research findings were that recruiting users and former users as case workers did not have any negative impact on the patients in terms of symptoms, psychological functioning, or quality of life. However, there were a number of beneficial effects associated with user participation. Patients reported some degree of improvement in quality of life, few emotional difficulties and improved social functioning. Some of the patients also reported that they were less dependent on their families and required less use of hospital services. Employing users did not affect patients’ satisfaction with the mental health services they had received. Furthermore, as users had to be trained for their case work roles, the trainers reported a more positive attitude towards mentally ill people in general as a consequence of their professional involvement with them. Of all the studies included in the systematic review, only one study was based in the UK and the vast majority of the studies were based on the US health care system. This may reflect the more progressive attitude on user involvement within the USA health care service. The only UK study was by Wood and Wilson-Barnet (1999) and it involved a comparative study of two groups of student nurses who differed in their exposures to users informing nursing training. Students were interviewed and completed questionnaires on their attitude towards mental illness, and the user participation programme. This study showed that students exposed to a greater level of user participation, and at an earlier stage of training, demonstrated greater empathy and a more individualised approach to the care of mentally ill patients. This study only included a small sample of 29 nurses and therefore generalisation of findings is limited.