Cited by 43Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Service users' views regarding user involvement in mental health services: A qualitative study

Laitila, Minna, Nummelin, Jalmiina, Kortteisto, Tiina, Pitkänen, Anneli·2018·Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

Abstract

Background Service user involvement is emphasised in many strategies, plans and declarations globally. However, in practice, service user involvement is not always achieved and remains at a tokenistic level.Objectives To explore the views of service users on user involvement in mental health service.Design Explorative descriptive study design.Setting The study was conducted in one psychiatric hospital and in two mental health organisations in western Finland.Methods The data was generated through three focus group interviews and analysed with qualitative content analysis.Results User involvement means that people using mental health services are respected, listened to and can act in co-operation with professionals so than they feel that they can influence their own care and treatment. The participants articulated concrete factors that promote or inhibit user involvement. Service user involvement can be enhanced by strengthening service users´ position, by developing the mental health care system and by specific training for professionals.Conclusions The views of service users in this study concerning the realisation of user involvement and the factors promoting and preventing it were realistic. They are basic elements of patient-centred care and of all human interaction. Our participants described service user involvement in their own care and treatment. They emphasised the need to have more information, and wanted to be more involved in decision-making about their own care and treatment. They called for better care planning and co-ordination as one way to increase service user involvement. These also have implications for mental health services at the system level.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apnu.2018.03.009

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laitila, M., Nummelin, J., Kortteisto, T., & Pitkänen, A.
Affiliations
  • Kanta-Hämeen Keskussairaala (FI)
  • Tampere University Hospital (FI)
  • Pirkanmaa Hospital District (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Laitila, Minna
  • Nummelin, Jalmiina
  • Kortteisto, Tiina
  • Pitkänen, Anneli
Venue
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
695-701
ISSN
0883-9417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2790475817
Cited by
43
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
service user involvement, mental health services, patient participation, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, care planning, professional training, psychiatric hospitals, user perspective
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Female, Finland, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Mental Health Services, Focus Groups, Patient-Centered Care, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review