Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorD.J. Frost, Aaronen_US
dc.contributor.authorEadie, Kathyen_US
dc.contributor.authorG. Harris, Meredithen_US
dc.contributor.authorI. O⿿Toole, Brianen_US
dc.contributor.authorJ. Carr, Vaughanen_US
dc.contributor.authorL. Neil, Amandaen_US
dc.contributor.authorLewin, Terryen_US
dc.contributor.authorR. Crissman, Belindaen_US
dc.contributor.authorV. Catts, Stanleyen_US
dc.contributor.authorW. Evans, Russellen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-04T16:48:54Z
dc.date.available2017-04-04T16:48:54Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2011-02-14T09:13:26Z
dc.identifier.issn17517893en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1751-7893.2009.00157.xen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/36150
dc.description.abstractAim: Expert opinion holds that the rate of implementation of specialist services for first presentation psychosis in Australia is much too slow. We aimed to collect evidence regarding this view from the first national survey of adult public mental health services about their self-reported efforts to implement specialist early psychosis intervention (EPI). Methods: Using a purpose-designed Census form for assessing EPI implementation, adult public mental health service directors throughout Australia were asked about EPI-relevant local service activities. Results: Sixty Census forms were returned (response rate = 61%), representing a total catchment population of 12.5 million people. A minority of services reported high levels of EPI implementation, which varied widely between area services and across state and territory jurisdictions. Rural and remote services were overrepresented in the lowest levels of reported EPI implementation. Only one service characteristic, the value of identifiable funding committed specifically to EPI, was predictive of level of reported EPI implementation. Conclusions: The disturbingly high levels of variability in EPI implementation across jurisdictions suggest a pressing need for a set of nationally agreed uniform EPI implementation standards. Additional specific strategies for rural and remote mental health services may be needed for these services to implement EPI.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltden_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom25en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto30en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_AU
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEarly Intervention in Psychiatryen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume4en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHealth, Clinical and Counselling Psychologyen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode170106en_US
dc.titleIs a national framework for implementing early psychosis services necessary? Results of a survey of Australian mental health service directorsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record