Cited by 20Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Service User Experiences of How Flexible Assertive Community Treatment May Support or Inhibit Citizenship: A Qualitative Study

Open access
Brekke, Eva, Clausen, Hanne K., Brodahl, Morten, Lexén, Annika, Keet, Rene, Mulder, Cornelis L., Landheim, Anne S.·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore and describe service user experiences of how receiving services from a Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) team may support or inhibit citizenship. Within a participatory design, individual interviews with 32 service users from five Norwegian FACT teams were analyzed using thematic, cross-sectional analysis. The findings showed that FACT may support citizenship by relating to service users as whole people, facilitating empowerment and involvement, and providing practical and accessible help. Experiences of coercion, limited involvement and authoritarian aspects of the system surrounding FACT had inhibited citizenship for participants in this study.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727013

Cites

66 of 66 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wilkinson R. Picket K. (2010). The Spirit Level. Why Egalitarian Cultures Always do Better. London: Penguin Books.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brekke, E., Clausen, H. K., Brodahl, M., Lexén, A., Keet, R., Mulder, C. L., & Landheim, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Innlandet Hospital Trust (NO)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
Brekke, Eva
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
12
Pages
727013-727013
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3198664080
Cited by
20
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
flexible assertive community treatment, citizenship, service user experiences, mental health services, empowerment, coercion, authoritarianism, participation, community mental health

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