What are “good outcomes” in public mental health settings? A qualitative exploration of clients' and therapists' experiences
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The mental health field sees a surge of interest in Routine Outcome Monitoring, mandated by a wish to help better those not-on-track to recovery. What constitutes positive outcomes for these patients is not fully understood. AIMS: To contribute knowledge into what constitutes meaningful outcome concepts in the experiences of patients with long and complex mental health suffering and treatment, and the clinicians who work to help them. METHODS: A qualitative in-depth study of 50 participants' experiences. Data are collected through focus groups and individual interviews, and analyzed using a team based structured thematic analytic approach. RESULTS: We found an overarching theme of outcome as an ongoing process of recovery, with the four constituent themes: (1) strengthening approach patterns for new coping; (2) embodying change reflected by others; (3) using new understandings developed in dialogue; and (4) integrating collaborative acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss our findings in light of existing empirical studies and different recovery concepts, and suggest that if outcomes monitoring is to become an integral part of routine practice, it might be beneficial to integrate an understanding of outcomes as ongoing processes of recovery within mental health suffering into these systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Service users who underlined the importance of bi-directional communication for recovery may adhere better to treatments of a dialogical nature, while users less interested in active engagement and meaning-making, such as those searching to achieve normalcy through completing everyday routines, could find more use in mindfulness-oriented techniques.
“Service users who underlined the importance of bi-directional communication for recovery may adhere better to treatments of a dialogical nature (54), while users less interested in active engagement and meaning-making, such as those searching to achieve normalcy through completing everyday routines, could find more use in mindfulness-oriented techniques (118, 119).”
From Recovery from Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review of Service User and Informal Caregiver Perspectives (2021) · cites this paper as [54]
Moltu et al. (2017) reported that "doing differently" rather than "feeling differently" held importance to participants.
“Moltu et al. (2017) studied what good outcomes from a patient perspective, and reported that “doing differently” rather than “feeling differently” held importance to participants.”
From Moving toward connectedness – a qualitative study of recovery processes for people with borderline personality disorder (2019) · cites this paper as Moltu et al. (2017)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Moltu, C., Stefansen, J., Nøtnes, J. C., Skjølberg, Å., & Veseth, M.
- Affiliations
- Helse Førde (NO)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- University of Bergen (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Moltu, Christian
- Venue
- International Journal of Mental Health Systems
- Published
- 2017-01-14
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-12
- ISSN
- 1752-4458 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5237476
- OpenAlex
- W2576393031
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- International Journal of Mental Health Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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 › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- routine outcome monitoring, recovery, meaningful outcomes, long-term mental illness, customer experience, therapist experience, coping
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
