Search

Over the past three decades, "lived experience" designated roles in mental health services in Australia have increased. However, the lived experience of staff in roles not designated in this way is often hidden or unacknowledged. This qualitative study included 33 participants employed in a range of roles at two Victorian mental health services, including 10 social workers. Interviews explored staff perspectives regarding the sharing of lived experience by staff with colleagues and supervisors. Concept analysis identified conflicting ways of thinking about lived experience, which influenced when and how staff shared and how they responded to sharing by other staff. These findings suggest the need to explicitly address the purpose and value of sharing lived experience in the mental health workplace, to better support staff and service users. Recommendations for social workers and their colleagues, working at all levels of the mental health system, are provided. IMPLICATIONS The perspectives and experiences of mental health service staff suggest room for improvement in the valuing and inclusion of staff with lived experience, which may have benefits for service-user experiences of support. Promoting the value of sharing lived experience to reflective-practice and service reform is consistent with core social work values and, thus, the responsibility of all social workers, supervisors, and educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This is the first pilot study to examine the Australian adaptation of the Strengthening Families Program (SFP), a manualised family intervention recommended internationally in evidence reviews to improve family functioning and child mental health. The study compared two versions (8 vs. 14‐session) and longitudinally evaluated outcomes for child emotional and behavioural difficulties, and parental psychological distress. Method: Fifty‐eight families from disadvantaged primary schools in regional Victoria with children 8–12 years (80.6% of initially enrolled families, 62 parents and 74 children) completed the program and evaluation measures. Measures were repeated at pre‐, post‐, and 3‐month follow‐up and included the Kessler 6, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and subscales adapted from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children and Communities that Care Youth Survey. Results: The program showed significant reductions in child difficulties and parental psychological distress from pre‐ to post‐measurements that were sustained at follow‐up. Reductions in parental psychological distress were significantly associated with reductions in child difficulties at follow‐up. The 8‐ and 14‐session formats were not found to be significantly different in reducing child difficulties or parental psychological distress. Effect sizes for the Australian version were similar to those reported in previous U.S. trials. Conclusions: Findings support the feasibility and effectiveness of an Australian adaptation of the SFP. The current study is unique in identifying similar outcomes for shorter and longer versions of the intervention. It is recommended that the 8‐session Australian version is examined in a larger randomised controlled trial where children present with behavioural and emotional problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]