<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tonje Lossius Husum</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irene Wormdahl</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Solveig H. H. Kjus</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trond Hatling</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Something Happened with the Way We Work: Evaluating the Implementation of the Reducing Coercion in Norway (ReCoN) Intervention in Primary Mental Health Care</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MDPI</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">co-creation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">complex intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deltakende forskning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">implementation research</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Implementeringsforskning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Involuntary admission</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kompleks intervensjon</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mental health services</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">participatory research</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primary mental health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primær psykisk helseomsorg</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">process evaluation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prosessevaluering</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psykiske helsetjenester</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">reducing coercion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Redusere tvang</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samskaping</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ufrivillig innleggelse</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2024</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">04/2024</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/7/786</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Background: Current policies to reduce the use of involuntary admissions are largely oriented towards specialist mental health care and have had limited success. We co-created, with stakeholders in five Norwegian municipalities, the &amp;lsquo;Reducing Coercion in Norway&amp;rsquo; (ReCoN) intervention that aims to reduce involuntary admissions by improving the way in which primary mental health services work and collaborate. The intervention was implemented in five municipalities and is being tested in a cluster randomized control trial, which is yet to be published. The present study evaluates the implementation process in the five intervention municipalities. To assess how the intervention was executed, we report on how its different elements were implemented, and what helped or hindered implementation. Methods: We assessed the process using qualitative methods. Data included detailed notes from quarterly progress interviews with (i) intervention coordinators and representatives from (ii) user organisations and (iii) carer organisations. Finally, an end-of-intervention evaluation seminar included participants from across the sites. Results: The majority of intervention actions were implemented. We believe this was enabled by the co-creating process, which ensured ownership and a good fit for the local setting. The analysis of facilitators and barriers showed a high degree of interconnectedness between different parts of the intervention so that success (or lack thereof) in one area affected the success in others. Future implementation should pay attention to enhanced planning and training, clarify the role and contribution of service user and carer involvement, and pay close attention to the need for implementation support and whether this should be external or internal to services. Conclusions: It is feasible to implement a complex intervention designed to reduce the use of involuntary admissions in general support services, such as the Norwegian primary mental health services. This could have implications for national and international policy aimed at reducing the use of involuntary care.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Healthcare 2024</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tore Hofstad</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Solveig Osborg Ose</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olav Nyttingnes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Solveig Helene Høymork Kjus</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tonje Lossius Husum</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Service Characteristics and Geographical Variation in Compulsory Hospitalisation: An exploratory random effects within-between analysis of Norwegian municipalities 2015-2018</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers in Psychiatry</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geografisk varasjon</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tjenestetilbud</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tvangsinnleggelse</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.737698/full?</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;Compulsory hospitalisation in mental healthcare is contested. For ethical and legal reasons, it should only be used as a last resort. Geographical variation could indicate that some areas employ compulsory hospitalisation more frequently than is strictly necessary. Explaining variation in compulsory hospitalisation might contribute to reducing overuse, but research on associations with service characteristics remains patchy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;We aimed to investigate the associations between the levels of compulsory hospitalisation and the characteristics of primary mental health services in Norway between 2015 and 2018 and the amount of variance explained by groups of explanatory variables.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;We applied random-effects within&amp;ndash;between Poisson regression of 461 municipalities/city districts, nested within 72 community mental health centre catchment areas (&lt;i&gt;N&lt;/i&gt;&amp;nbsp;= 1,828 municipality-years).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;More general practitioners, mental health nurses, and the total labour-years in municipal mental health and addiction services per population are associated with lower levels of compulsory hospitalisations within the same areas, as measured by both persons (inpatients) and events (hospitalisations). Areas that, on average, have more general practitioners and public housing per population have lower levels of compulsory hospitalisation, while higher levels of compulsory hospitalisation are seen in areas with a longer history of supported employment and the systematic gathering of service users&amp;#39; experiences. In combination, all the variables, including the control variables, could account for 39&amp;ndash;40% of the variation, with 5&amp;ndash;6% related to municipal health services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;Strengthening primary mental healthcare by increasing the number of general practitioners and mental health workers can reduce the use of compulsory hospitalisation and improve the quality of health services.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tvangsinnleggelse</style></label></record></records></xml>