Health services research · 2013
Variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships for persons with serious mental illness.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеResearch Support, American Recovery and Reinvestment ActПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gilmer Todd P, Katz Marian L, Stefancic Ana, Palinkas Lawrence A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study examined variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), which are supported housing programs that do "whatever it takes" to improve outcomes among persons with serious mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Ninety-three FSPs in California.
STUDY DESIGN: A mixed methods approach was selected to develop a better understanding of the complexity of the FSP programs. The design structure was a combined explanatory and exploratory sequential design (qual→QUAN→qual) where a qualitative focus group was used to develop a quantitative survey that was followed by qualitative site visits. The survey was used to describe the breadth of variation based on fidelity to the Housing First model, while the site visits were used to provide a depth of information on high- versus low-fidelity programs.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found substantial variation in implementation among FSPs. Fidelity was particularly low along domains related with housing and service philosophy, indicating that many FSPs implemented a rich array of services but applied housing readiness requirements and did not adhere to consumer choice in housing.
CONCLUSIONS: There remains room for improvement in the recovery-orientation of FSPs. Fortunately, we have identified several processes by which program managers and counties can increase the fidelity of their programs.
DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Ninety-three FSPs in California.
STUDY DESIGN: A mixed methods approach was selected to develop a better understanding of the complexity of the FSP programs. The design structure was a combined explanatory and exploratory sequential design (qual→QUAN→qual) where a qualitative focus group was used to develop a quantitative survey that was followed by qualitative site visits. The survey was used to describe the breadth of variation based on fidelity to the Housing First model, while the site visits were used to provide a depth of information on high- versus low-fidelity programs.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found substantial variation in implementation among FSPs. Fidelity was particularly low along domains related with housing and service philosophy, indicating that many FSPs implemented a rich array of services but applied housing readiness requirements and did not adhere to consumer choice in housing.
CONCLUSIONS: There remains room for improvement in the recovery-orientation of FSPs. Fortunately, we have identified several processes by which program managers and counties can increase the fidelity of their programs.