疾病管理与康复的“关键”要素：方法学途径比较
The "Critical" Elements of Illness Management and Recovery: Comparing Methodological Approaches.
作者信息
McGuire Alan B, Luther Lauren, White Dominique, White Laura M, McGrew John, Salyers Michelle P
机构信息
Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
出版信息
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016 Jan;43(1):1-10. doi: 10.1007/s10488-014-0614-9.
This study examined three methodological approaches to defining the critical elements of Illness Management and Recovery (IMR), a curriculum-based approach to recovery. Sixty-seven IMR experts rated the criticality of 16 IMR elements on three dimensions: defining, essential, and impactful. Three elements (Recovery Orientation, Goal Setting and Follow-up, and IMR Curriculum) met all criteria for essential and defining and all but the most stringent criteria for impactful. Practitioners should consider competence in these areas as preeminent. The remaining 13 elements met varying criteria for essential and impactful. Findings suggest that criticality is a multifaceted construct, necessitating judgments about model elements across different criticality dimensions.
本研究考察了三种用于界定疾病管理与康复（IMR）关键要素的方法，IMR是一种基于课程的康复方法。67位IMR专家从三个维度对16个IMR要素的关键性进行了评级：定义性、必要性和影响力。三个要素（康复导向、目标设定与跟进以及IMR课程）满足必要性和定义性的所有标准，以及除最严格标准外的影响力标准。从业者应将这些领域的能力视为首要能力。其余13个要素满足必要性和影响力的不同标准。研究结果表明，关键性是一个多方面的概念，需要对不同关键性维度的模型要素进行判断。
Zotero 插件