Cited by 69Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Supporting Recovery by Improving Patient Engagement in a Forensic Mental Health Hospital: Results From a Demonstration Project

Livingston, James D., Nijdam-Jones, Alicia, Lapsley, Sara, Calderwood, Colleen, Brink, Johann·2013·Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mental health services are shifting toward approaches that promote patients’ choices and acknowledge the value of their lived experiences. OBJECTIVE: To support patients’ recovery and improve their experiences of care in a Canadian forensic mental health hospital, an intervention was launched to increase patient engagement by establishing a peer support program, strengthening a patient advisory committee, and creating a patient-led research team. DESIGN: The effect of the intervention on patient- and system-level outcomes was studied using a naturalistic, prospective, longitudinal approach. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from inpatients and service providers twice during the 19-month intervention. RESULTS: Despite succeeding in supporting patients’ participation, the intervention had minimal impacts on internalized stigma, personal recovery, personal empowerment, service engagement, therapeutic milieu, and the recovery orientation of services. Peer support demonstrated positive effects on internalized stigma and personal recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening patient engagement contributes toward improving experiences of care in a forensic hospital, but it may have limited effects on outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1078390313489730

Cites

48 of 48 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Livingston, J. D., Nijdam-Jones, A., Lapsley, S., Calderwood, C., & Brink, J.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Alicia Nijdam-Jones, MA, BC Mental Health & Addiction Services, Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada
  • BC Mental Health & Substance Use Services (CA)
Venue
Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association
Published
2013-05
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
132-145
ISSN
  • 1078-3903 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5725
OpenAlex
W2124130689
Cited by
68
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association (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
patient engagement, forensic mental health, peer support, patient-led research, recovery-oriented services, self-stigma, personal recovery, empowerment, therapeutic environment, patient participation, lived experience
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Canada, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Cooperative Behavior, Female, Hospitals, Psychiatric, Humans, Insanity Defense, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Team, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Peer Group, Power, Psychological, Prospective Studies, Psychotic Disorders, Research, Schizophrenia, Social Support, Patient Satisfaction, Substance-Related Disorders, Advisory Committees, Interdisciplinary Communication

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