A deliberative study into the impact of integration on mental health social work in England: merely a dialogue or activism?

Author:

Vicary Sarah Anne OakleyORCID,Bailey John

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to examine the impact on mental health social work of integrated care; and second, to explore the effectiveness of the use of deliberative research, a methodology which is new to mental health social work research. Design/methodology/approach Developed to enable examination of policy, deliberative research is underpinned by a desire to permit choice and change brought about through an iterative dialogue. This communication is based on informed and respectful equality between policy makers or implementers and those subject to that implementation. In order to achieve this equality, participation in debate by participants is viewed as essential, including as part of the process, participants becoming better informed about the phenomenon in question. Findings The findings show that effective mental health social work underpins successful integrated care which, in turn, is viewed as relevant. In addition, people who access services identified that mental health social workers are well positioned as facilitators and explainers in integrated care. The issue to be further explored by research, therefore, is not whether services should be delivered separately or in an integrated way, but how to keep improving and developing integrated care and especially the impact of ongoing power differentials. Research limitations/implications The use of deliberative research worked reasonably well as an underpinning methodology for this study in that it sought to achieve the opinions of the public, in this instance consumers who provided or accessed mental health social work. The ethical need to ensure no harm came to this particular group meant that their opinions were not debated with the whole. This limitation to iterative dialogue is undoubtedly a consideration when undertaking deliberative research on such populations. This study offered just this, a one-off event, as in reality the commitment from participants to attend more than this one session would have been prohibitive. Practical implications The test, practically, comes with the events for data collection. This is not just the debate as to whether these, as one-off events, bring about agreement and not deliberation, but also whether researchers can, with a group that has particular needs, effectively integrate them into the deliberation. Given that it is an ethical priority to ensure that the participants are not harmed, this is not always going to be possible where the “public” includes those who may be vulnerable. Originality/value Deliberative research methodology is a new approach in mental health social work research. The influential finding is activism: people who access services recognise and suggest a challenge to the normative power differential in integrated care, as embodied in mental health social workers, and it is this aspect that warrants further investigation.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Health Policy,Education,Pshychiatric Mental Health,Health (social science)

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3