Co-Production Journey to Wellness Guide

被引:2
|
作者
Swarbrick, Margaret [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Kuebler, Corey [5 ]
Treitler, Peter [3 ,4 ]
Estes, Arielle [5 ]
Digioia-Laird, Vincent [5 ]
Moosvi, Karen [6 ]
Nemec, Patricia [1 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers Ctr Alcohol & Subst Use Studies, Grad Sch Appl & Profess Psychol, Piscataway, NJ USA
[2] Collaborat Support Programs New Jersey, Freehold, NJ USA
[3] Rutgers State Univ, Inst Hlth Hlth Care Policy & Aging Res, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[4] Rutgers State Univ, Sch Social Work, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[5] Rutgers Univ Behav Hlth Care, Piscataway, NJ USA
[6] Healing & Hlth Solut LLC, Colts Neck, NJ USA
[7] Collaborat Support Programs New Jersey, 11 Spring St, Freehold, NJ 07728 USA
关键词
D O I
10.3928/02793695-20230321-02
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
As rates of substance use and mental disorders continue to rise, individuals with mental health and substance use challenges and their supporters could benefit from practical, accessible, cost-effective, wellness-focused tools outlining simple daily strategies to promote long-term recovery. The current article describes such a tool, the Journey to Wellness Guide, based on the Wellness Model, and developed through a co-production process. Co-production refers to a process of research, service design, and educational materials development where people with lived experience of mental health and/or substance use challenges share decision-making power throughout all stages of production, including the sharing of results. The co-production process resulted in a well-received wellness tool and tip guides for personal use, supporting others, and use in a group context. The value of this tool for psychosocial nursing and behavioral health care worker self-care and practice is outlined.
引用
收藏
页码:24 / +
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Patient and Public Involvement in research: A journey to co-production
    Price, Amy
    Clarke, Mike
    Staniszewska, Sophie
    Chu, Larry
    Tembo, Doreen
    Kirkpatrick, Marjorie
    Nelken, Yasmine
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2022, 105 (04) : 1041 - 1047
  • [2] Exploring the mental health effects of Universal Credit: a journey of co-production
    Cheetham, M.
    Atkinson, P. J.
    Gibson, M.
    Katikireddi, S., V
    Moffatt, S.
    Morris, S.
    Munford, L.
    Shenton, F.
    Wickham, S.
    Craig, P.
    PERSPECTIVES IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 142 (04) : 209 - 212
  • [3] A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey
    Voorberg, W. H.
    Bekkers, V. J. J. M.
    Tummers, L. G.
    PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2015, 17 (09) : 1333 - 1357
  • [4] Doctor@Home: Through a Telemedicine Co-production and Co-learning Journey
    Luca Miceli
    Francesca Dal Mas
    Helena Biancuzzi
    Rym Bednarova
    Alessandro Rizzardo
    Lorenzo Cobianchi
    Eric S. Holmboe
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2022, 37 : 1236 - 1238
  • [5] Doctor@Home: Through a Telemedicine Co-production and Co-learning Journey
    Miceli, Luca
    Dal Mas, Francesca
    Biancuzzi, Helena
    Bednarova, Rym
    Rizzardo, Alessandro
    Cobianchi, Lorenzo
    Holmboe, Eric S.
    JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION, 2022, 37 (04) : 1236 - 1238
  • [6] Listening to children and young people: an Educational Psychology Service co-production journey
    Boswell, Naomi
    Douglas-Osborn, Erica
    Halkyard, Taylor
    Woods, Kevin
    EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE, 2021, 37 (04) : 396 - 412
  • [7] A case for co-production
    Vikram, Anvita
    Siniscalchi, Madeleine
    Banerji, Anita
    PSYCHOLOGIST, 2022, 35 : 4 - 4
  • [8] WHAT IS CO-PRODUCTION?
    Steadman, L.
    Dodgson, S.
    Taylor-Rose, A.
    HAEMOPHILIA, 2022, 28 : 15 - 15
  • [9] Co-production: what makes co-production work? Evidence from Pakistan
    Farooqi, Seemab Ara
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT, 2016, 29 (04) : 381 - 395
  • [10] (CO)CONTAMINATION AS THE DARK SIDE OF CO-PRODUCTION Public value failures in co-production processes
    Williams, Brian N.
    Kang, Seong-Cheol
    Johnson, Japera
    PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2016, 18 (05) : 692 - 717