Mental Health Clinician Attitudes about Service User and Family Agency and Involvement in Recovery-Oriented Practice.

BACKGROUND: Recovery-oriented practice (ROP) is a framework focusing on recovery through hope, choice, and meaning, to live with or without enduring symptoms and challenges. AIMS: To examine clinicians' attitudes about the involvement of service users and family or supporters in ROP. METHODS: A bespoke Qualtrics survey obtained views of mental health clinicians working in an Australian public mental health service about service user and family involvement in ROP, using a five-point Likert scale of agreement and free-text responses. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and content analysis methods. RESULTS: Two hundred and three clinicians completed the survey. Most (79%) clinicians agreed with the statement that service users want clinicians to use ROP principles, and the majority (63%) also 'strongly believed' that ROP made a difference to service users' mental health outcomes. Only 15% 'strongly agreed' and 57% somewhat agreed with the statement that service users know what treatment is best for them, and only 20% of clinicians 'strongly agreed' that supporters of service users believed in and wanted ROP for their family member or friend. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This study adds to the literature on clinicians' views about ROP and shows that although clinicians are supportive of ROP, they also express substantial ambivalence about whether service users and families know what treatment is best. For ROP implementation to be successful, workforce training needs to support clinicians to reflect on these views with service users and families, and to encourage supported decision making. Future studies should focus on changes in clinicians' views and practice post ROP training.

New approaches for moving upstream: how state and local health departments can transform practice to reduce health inequalities.

Growing evidence shows that unequal distribution of wealth and power across race, class, and gender produces the differences in living conditions that are "upstream" drivers of health inequalities. Health educators and other public health professionals, however, still develop interventions that focus mainly on "downstream" behavioral risks. Three factors explain the difficulty in translating this knowledge into practice. First, in their allegiance to the status quo, powerful elites often resist upstream policies and programs that redistribute wealth and power. Second, public health practice is often grounded in dominant biomedical and behavioral paradigms, and health departments also face legal and political limits on expanding their scope of activities. Finally, the evidence for the impact of upstream interventions is limited, in part because methodologies for evaluating upstream interventions are less developed. To illustrate strategies to overcome these obstacles, we profile recent campaigns in the United States to enact living wages, prevent mortgage foreclosures, and reduce exposure to air pollution. We then examine how health educators working in state and local health departments can transform their practice to contribute to campaigns that reallocate the wealth and power that shape the living conditions that determine health and health inequalities. We also consider health educators' role in producing the evidence that can guide transformative expansion of upstream interventions to reduce health inequalities.