Search

Background: Out of school hours care (OSHC) services provide a unique opportunity to deliver early intervention programs to enhance primary school-aged children's social, emotional, physical, and cognitive well-being; however, such programs are currently lacking. Objective: This study aims to address the lack of well-being programs for children accessing OSHC services in the research literature by using participatory design (PD) to collaboratively develop and test an OSHC well-being program--the connect, promote, and protect program (CP3). Methods: The study employed methods of PD, user (acceptance) testing, and iterative knowledge translation to develop a novel well-being program framework--CP3--with key stakeholders (eg, children, OSHC staff, volunteers, families, clinicians, educators, and researchers). Thematic techniques were used to interpret and translate the qualitative information obtained during the research and design cycles. Results: The co-design process generated the CP3 model, which comprises a group-based mentoring approach to facilitate enhanced activities in OSHC settings. Activities are underpinned by 4 key principles of program delivery: build well-being and resilience, broaden horizons, inspire and engage, and connect communities. Conclusions: To our knowledge, the CP3 program is the first co-designed well-being program developed specifically for OSHC services. This co-design process is key to ensuring local community needs--particularly those of young people accessing OSHC--are met and that these individuals are meaningfully and actively involved in all stages of the research and design process, from conception to implementation, evaluation, and continuous improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited research investigating how information about a mental health diagnosis is discussed and received. Aims: To measure community-based service users’ satisfaction and preferences toward receiving news of a serious mental health diagnosis and to assess the acceptability of a diagnostic communication protocol (SPIKES:Setting; Perception; Invitation; Knowledge; Empathy; Summarizing). Method: A survey was conducted with 101 participants. Results: Participants rated the methods clinicians use to facilitate diagnostic discussions are highly important; however, they were not wholly satisfied with their experience. Higher satisfaction was reported if participants were provided with information in a face-to-face meeting (p < 0.001), and if they received supplementary support at the time of diagnosis from additional health professionals rather than only a sole practitioner (p < 0.001). The SPIKES protocol was rated as highly acceptable, withEmpathybeing rated as the most important feature. Conclusions: This research indicates there were specific areas of communication practices which can be improved within mental health service provision, as a gap existed between participants’ desire for support and their experience. Strategies outlined in the SPIKES protocol, and others such as addressing stigma concerns, may prove useful in development of clinician training and service improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: There is limited understanding of the mechanisms used to effectively communicate with service-users about their mental health diagnoses. Aims: To conduct a systematic synthesis of studies that present data on the communication of a psychiatric diagnosis. Methods: Comprehensive database and manual searches were conducted resulting in the inclusion of 30 quantitative and qualitative papers. Results: The majority of studies were descriptive. The rate of service-users being informed of their diagnosis has increased over the past decade. Consumer communication preferences were not always satisfactorily addressed in practice. Individual characteristics of service-users and clinicians influenced whether a diagnostic discussion took place. Results from intervention studies aimed at facilitating diagnostic communication reported significant improvements in service-user satisfaction and mood and clinician communication skills. Conclusions: This review highlights a gap in the system of communication between clinicians and service-users. To assist clinicians to talk effectively with individuals about their mental health, communication protocols and training need to be further developed and assessed. Such developments would benefit from well-designed randomised controlled trial protocols, should incorporate service-users' preferences and address stigma-related concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Communication of a mental health diagnosis can be a difficult process and is a poorly understood area of service provision. The aim of this qualitative study was to examine clinicians' perceptions of barriers and helpful strategies to discussing information about a mental health condition.Method: Qualitative interviews with 19 Australian clinicians (general practitioners, mental health nurses, psychiatrists, and psychologists) working in several settings (community, hospital inpatient, outpatient, accident and emergency) and locations (urban, suburban and rural) were conducted and analysed thematically.Results: After theme saturation was reached, four primary themes relating to barriers and facilitators to communication at the time of diagnosis were identified in the data. Outside a recognised lack of focus on this area in training, themes included (1) engagement and timing of conversations; (2) stigma and its reduction; (3) perceived and desired knowledge for diagnostic information; and (4) working with distress. The synthesis of themes is demonstrated in a flowchart of suggestions for communicating news of mental health diagnosis that tracks the patient journey in receiving information from initial engagement to follow-up.Conclusions: Talking with an individual about a mental health diagnosis is a non-linear, complex and changeable situation. However, health professionals report using specific strategies to aid this communication process, to meet the specific individual's needs. Strategies such as tailoring to the person's situation, utilising collaborative practice, effective coordination, and addressing stigma may be useful to inform clinician training and support whilst diagnosis remains a key feature of the mental health system in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]