Search results

This review paper will look at internationally existing publications in the English language on mental health shared decision making (SDM) implementation of a variety of interventions, including different methodologies and research methods, age groups and countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of: process, degree and outcomes of implementation; barriers and facilitators; perspectives on implementation by different stakeholders; analysis of the process of implementation in mental health services through the lenses of the normalisation process theory (NPT).

Following a targeted literature search the data were analysed in order to provide an overview of methodologies and methods applied in the articles, as well as of the variables listed above. Three different types of information were included: a content analysis of key issues, reflective understanding coming out of participating in implementation of an SDM project in the form of two narratives written by two key participants in an SDM pilot project and an NPT analysis of the process of implementation.

Only a minority of mental health SDM research focuses on implementation in everyday practice. It is possible and often desirable to achieve SDM in mental health services; it requires a low level of technology, it can save time once routinized, and it is based on enhancing therapeutic alliance, as well as service users’ motivation. Implementation requires an explicit policy decision, a clear procedure, and regular adherence to the aims and methods of implementation by all participants. These necessary and sufficient conditions are rarely met, due to the different levels of commitment to SDM and its process by the different key stakeholders, as well as due to competing providers’ objectives and the time allocated to achieving them.

The review indicates both the need to take into account the complexity of SDM, as well as future strategies for enhancing its implementation in everyday mental health practice. Perhaps because applying SDM reflects a major cultural change in mental health practice, current value attached to SDM among clinicians and service managers would need to be more positive, prominent and enduring to enable a greater degree of implementation.

1. Introduction Probably the “hottest” topic in the LISA (Library and Information Systems) world in recent times is the idea of developing systems which can act “intelligently” by using the knowledge of a human expert (within our context, that of an intermediary or a librarian). Such knowledge‐based systems are popularly known as “expert systems”.

The issues involved in the construction of an expert system for retrieval are described, together with some of the techniques that have been used in artificial intelligence and information science to tackle them. The solutions adopted by the prototype expert system PLEXUS are described, with particular reference to the semantic processing that takes place. The paper concludes with a discussion of continuing issues on which work is currently proceeding.

In ‘ASK for Information Retrieval: Part I’, we discussed the theory and background to a design study for an information retrieval (IR) system based on the attempt to represent the anomalous states of knowledge (ASKs) underlying information needs. In Part II, we report the methods and results of the design study, and our conclusions.

The pioneers of computing, notably Weaver, Booth, Turing and Luhn, were extremely optimistic about the progress they expected to occur in what would now be termed Artificial Intelligence. The implementation of mechanical translation was expected to be rapid, for instance. Judged in terms of this early promise, progress has appeared to be slow and erratic. Exciting individual projects, like Winograd's SHRDLU, have shone out like lighthouses through the gloom only to gradually fade back into the mists. Most progress has been made in restricted fields and there are few signs that significant progress has been, or is being made in tackling the major problem, namely that of designing information systems capable of accommodating the fundamental problem of words having many meanings, and its correlate of identical or similar things being portrayed by a multiplicity of words.

THE Programme of the Library Association Conference which reached us on April 22nd is one of much interest. Every year increases the difficulty of providing matter which has such appeal that members can say at the close that the time has been spent profitably. The pre‐print of the papers—a rather incomplete affair—raises the thought that Conference time could be better used than in discussions on such “Research Committee” matters as library vans and temporary buildings, excellent as we admit the enquiries and results of them to be. Yet this reflection is accompanied by the certainty that there have been few conferences which have not contributed something of material use to every participator and we still hold the view that more is learned in “a week at one than in months of hermit‐like seclusion.” That last quotation was written in the first edition of Brown's Manual and is valid to this day. Our representatives will write impressions after the event, not by way of detailed report, but as endeavouring to sum up what, if anything, material has been achieved. The report published by the Association usually gives the papers in extenso, but we wish its issue could be delayed long enough to provide more informative records of the discussions. As the best contributions occasionally come from the floor, the bare‐bones notes of the names of speakers and almost telegram‐like utterances they are supposed to have made, which have been the customary report, could be greatly improved.

Reference departments across North America have been struggling in recent years with a “reference crisis.” This crisis is characterized by too much demand for service, too many low‐level and repetitive questions, not enough time to answer more challenging questions properly, too few staff to give service at all hours when it is needed, and so on. At the same time, there is a growing concern with the quality of reference service being provided. Reference departments are being exhorted to evaluate the quality of their reference service and to take measures, if necessary, to bring it up to an acceptable standard. But these two issues, the reference crisis and reference evaluation, are related. No amount of staff training or job rotation can improve the standard of reference if the problems associated with the reference crisis are not addressed as well.