Difference between revisions of "Stevanovic2022"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Melisa Stevanovic; Taina Valkeapää; Elina Weiste; Camilla Lindholm; |Title=Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation co...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Counselling Psychology Quarterly | |Journal=Counselling Psychology Quarterly | ||
| − | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166 |
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166 |
| − | |Abstract=Using both statistical methods and conversation analysis, we examined how support workers in a mental health rehabilitation community encourage clients to participate in joint decision-making | + | |Abstract=Using both statistical methods and conversation analysis, we examined how support workers in a mental health rehabilitation community encourage clients to participate in joint decision-making processes. Drawing on video-recordings of 29 community meetings as data, we considered support workers’ proposals (N = 449) and clients’ responsiveness to them. Support workers’ proposals were coded for their linguistic and other features and clients’ responsiveness was assessed by three independent raters. Multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was carried out. A significant regression equation with seven predictor variables accounted for 24% of the variance in the data. Four variables predicted a higher level of client responsiveness: the use of explicit recipient address term, “quasi-open” proposal form, support worker’s long work experience, and the average level of client participation during a session. Three variables predicted a lower level of client responsiveness: grammatical complexity of proposal form, modal declarative proposal form, and the presence of only one support worker in a session. The qualitative conversation-analytic investigation highlighted the advantages of the careful fine-tuning of openness vs. closedness of proposal form, the reflexive awareness of which, we argue, may help mental health professionals to encourage clients’ responsiveness in joint decision-making processes and thereby their participation in communal life. |
| − | processes. Drawing on video-recordings of 29 community meetings | ||
| − | as data, we considered support workers’ proposals (N = 449) and | ||
| − | clients’ responsiveness to them. Support workers’ proposals were | ||
| − | coded for their linguistic and other features and clients’ responsiveness was assessed by three independent raters. Multiple linear | ||
| − | regression (MLR) analysis was carried out. A significant regression | ||
| − | equation with seven predictor variables accounted for 24% of the | ||
| − | variance in the data. Four variables predicted a higher level of client | ||
| − | responsiveness: the use of explicit recipient address term, | ||
| − | the average level of client participation during a session. Three | ||
| − | variables predicted a lower level of client responsiveness: grammatical complexity of proposal form, modal declarative proposal form, | ||
| − | and the presence of only one support worker in a session. The | ||
| − | qualitative conversation-analytic investigation highlighted the | ||
| − | advantages of the careful fine-tuning of openness vs. closedness | ||
| − | of proposal form, the reflexive awareness of which, we argue, may | ||
| − | help mental health professionals to encourage clients’ responsiveness in joint decision-making processes and thereby their participation in communal life. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 08:37, 31 July 2021
| Stevanovic2022 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stevanovic-etal2020b |
| Author(s) | Melisa Stevanovic, Taina Valkeapää, Elina Weiste, Camilla Lindholm |
| Title | Joint decision making in a mental health
rehabilitation community: the impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Mental health rehabilitation, Proposals, Responsiveness, Participation, In press |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2020 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Counselling Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using both statistical methods and conversation analysis, we examined how support workers in a mental health rehabilitation community encourage clients to participate in joint decision-making processes. Drawing on video-recordings of 29 community meetings as data, we considered support workers’ proposals (N = 449) and clients’ responsiveness to them. Support workers’ proposals were coded for their linguistic and other features and clients’ responsiveness was assessed by three independent raters. Multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was carried out. A significant regression equation with seven predictor variables accounted for 24% of the variance in the data. Four variables predicted a higher level of client responsiveness: the use of explicit recipient address term, “quasi-open” proposal form, support worker’s long work experience, and the average level of client participation during a session. Three variables predicted a lower level of client responsiveness: grammatical complexity of proposal form, modal declarative proposal form, and the presence of only one support worker in a session. The qualitative conversation-analytic investigation highlighted the advantages of the careful fine-tuning of openness vs. closedness of proposal form, the reflexive awareness of which, we argue, may help mental health professionals to encourage clients’ responsiveness in joint decision-making processes and thereby their participation in communal life.
Notes
