MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280503600 · doi:10.1111/jep.13696

Implementation of strengths model case management in seven mental health agencies in Canada: Direct‐service practitioners' implementation experience

2022· article· en· W4280503600 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine Briand, Maryann Roebuck, Catherine Vallée, Christiane Bergeron‐Leclerc, Terry Krupa, Janet Durbin, Tim Aubry, Rick Goscha, Éric Latimer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversity of TorontoUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Qualitative researchFeelingMental healthGrounded theoryFocus groupStrengths and weaknessesImplementation researchAxial codingPsychologyKnowledge managementBest practiceMedical educationCoding (social sciences)Psychological interventionProcess managementNursingMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Implementation of strengths model case management is increasing internationally. However, few studies have focused on its implementation process, and none have specifically addressed the implementation experience of direct-service practitioners. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents factors that facilitate and impede the successful implementation of the strengths model, with a specific focus on practitioners who deliver the intervention directly to service recipients. METHOD: To address this objective, a qualitative study of seven mental health agencies that implemented the model was conducted, involving a combination of participant observations and qualitative semistructured interviews with case managers, team supervisors, and senior managers. Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding followed by axial coding. Finally, the findings were aligned with an adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Implementation of the strengths model involved a significant change in practice for case management practitioners. The results confirm that at the beginning of implementation, the strengths model was perceived as complex and not always adaptable to on-the-ground realities. With time, and with support from management, ongoing training and supervision sessions, and reflection and discussion, practitioners regained feelings of competence and resistance to the model diminished. The use of the model's structured team-based supervision tools was fundamental to supporting the implementation process by enabling an interactive and concrete training approach. CONCLUSIONS: The more an approach leads to changes in daily practice and is perceived as complex, the more concrete support is needed during implementation. This article highlights the importance of attending to a practitioner's sense of personal effectiveness and competence in the adoption of new practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.428 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207