Stevanovic2022

From emcawiki
Revision as of 05:20, 6 July 2020 by 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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

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, “quasiopen” 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