Cited by 59Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and Access

REFOCUS-PULSAR recovery-oriented practice training in specialist mental health care: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Meadows, Graham, Brophy, Lisa, Shawyer, Frances, Enticott, Joanne C, Fossey, Ellie, Thornton, Christine D, Weller, Penelope J, Wilson-Evered, Elisabeth +2 more·2019·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Recovery-oriented practice promotes the strengths and recovery potential of individuals. We aimed to establish whether individuals who access mental health services where staff have received the REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention, an adaptation of the UK's REFOCUS recovery-oriented staff intervention for use in Australia, show increased recovery compared with people using non-intervention services.Methods We did a pragmatic, two-step, stepped-wedge, randomised controlled trial at 18 sites grouped into 14 clusters across public mental health services and mental health community support services in Victoria, Australia. Eligible staff were working part-time or full-time in a direct service role at one of the 18 sites and had consumers being recruited for this study. Eligible consumers were receiving care from a participating cluster, with contact in the 3 months before data collection; aged 18-75 years; and not imprisoned. Clusters were randomly assigned with a web-based randomisation tool to receive the REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention in either the first year (step one) or second year (step two). Consumers, but not staff, were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR), for which cross-sectional data were collected across three timepoints (baseline [T0], year 1 [T1], and year 2 [T2]). The primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12614000957695.Findings 190 staff (111 from public mental health services and 79 from mental health community support services) received the REFOCUS-PULSAR recovery-oriented training intervention. Between Sept 18, 2014, and May 19, 2017, 942 consumers were recruited across the three timepoints (T0: n=301; T1: n=334; T2: n=307). The mean QPR score was 53·6 (SD 16·3) in the control group and 54·4 (16·2) in the intervention group (adjusted difference 3·7, 95% CI 0·5-6·8; p=0·023). The Cohen's d value for the intervention effect was small (d=0·23).Interpretation The REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention had a small but significant effect on the QPRs of individuals using community mental health services and might be effective in promotion of recovery-oriented practice across sectors.Funding Victorian Government Mental Illness Research Fund.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30429-2

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The QPR has been validated as a measure of personal recovery in the UK and Australia.

    “The QPR has been validated as a measure of personal recovery in the UK and Australia [8, 26].”

    From Consumers lived experiences and satisfaction with sub-acute mental health residential services (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Outcomes section (page unavailable) describes the QPR as a questionnaire used to assess personal recovery, and the trial uses it in Australia. The paper does not state that the QPR was validated in either the UK or Australia; its reference to a UK intervention concerns the training programme, not QPR validation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The MASS has subsequently been used in other studies to measure service delivery satisfaction.

    “it was adapted from a satisfaction survey developed by Rethink in the UK [27] and has subsequently been used in other studies to measure service delivery satisfaction [8, 29].”
  • Average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial.

    “In comparison, average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial, whereas their average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.”
  • Average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers among PARC service participants were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.

    “In comparison, average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial, whereas their average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.”
  • Only three of 18 controlled studies (17%) reported that the sample size was sufficiently large to be confident in the findings with at least 80% power.

    “Only three of 18 studies (17%) reported that the sample size was sufficiently large enough to be confident in the findings with at least 80% power (Hugo et al. 2002;Forbes et al. 2012;Meadows et al. 2019).”

    From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Meadows et al. 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meadows, G., Brophy, L., Shawyer, F., Enticott, J. C., Fossey, E., Thornton, C. D., Weller, P. J., Wilson-Evered, E., Edan, V., & Slade, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Monash Health (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • RMIT University (AU)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Meadows, Graham
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
103-114
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2909374653
Cited by
59
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
FWCI
12.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10040)
  • State Government of Victoria
  • NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
recovery-oriented care, staff training intervention, mental health services, public mental health services, recovery, strengths-based care, Victoria, Australia, mental health workforce development
MeSH terms
Mental Health Recovery, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Victoria, Young Adult

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