Involving people with severe mental illness in evaluation and performance improvement

Evaluation and the Health Professions

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 284-301

  Linhorst, Donald M ^a   Eckert, Anne ^b  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b St Louis Psychiat Rehab Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; MENTAL HOSPITAL; PERFORMANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS;

EID: 0036340732     PISSN: 01632787     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0163278702025003003     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Research note: Research and empowerment
2. Member roles in program evaluation: A case study from a psychosocial club
3. The impact of research participation on adults with severe mental illness
4. How consumers/survivors are evaluating the quality of psychiatric care
5. On the road to collaborative treatment planning: Consumer and provider perspectives
6. Considerations for research on consumer empowerment and psychosocial interventions
7. Strategies that foster empowerment
8. Meeting the challenge: Field evaluations of community support programs
9. Involving consumers in the review of organizational performance: Lessons learned
10. Implementing psychosocial rehabilitation in long-term inpatient psychiatric facilities
11. The involvement of a consumer council in organizational decision making in a public psychiatric hospital
12. Opportunities and limitations to empowering persons with severe mental illness through treatment planning
13. Treatment of forensic patients: An emerging role for public psychiatric hospitals
14. The experience of mental health consumers as researchers
15. Rehabilitation program evaluation: Use of focus groups to empower clients
16. Research strategies for consumer empowerment of people with severe mental illness
17. Staff and patients: Divergent views of treatment