IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2021i1p9-d707247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is a Forensic Cohabitation Program Recovery-Oriented? A Logic Model Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shu-Ping Chen

    (Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G4, Canada)

  • Wen-Pin Chang

    (Stepping Stones Behavioral Solutions, LLC, Indianapolis, IN 46205, USA)

  • Bryan Fleet

    (Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5Y 6A8, Canada)

  • Santoch Rai

    (Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5Y 6A8, Canada)

  • Steve Panteluk

    (Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5Y 6A8, Canada)

  • Alberto Choy

    (Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5Y 6A8, Canada)

  • DeAnn Hunter

    (Alberta Hospital Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5Y 6A8, Canada)

Abstract

Background. Recovery orientation is a movement in mental health practice. Although general mental health services have taken the lead in promoting recovery, forensic psychiatric systems have lagged behind because of the need to reconcile recovery principles with the complexities of legal mandates. Advocating recovery and making systemic changes can be challenging because they require seeking a balance between the competing duties to the patient and the public. This paper used a logic model framework to demonstrate a cohabitation program that placed a woman and her newborn infant in a secure forensic rehabilitation unit, and analyzed the key assumptions of recovery upon which it was based. Methods. This was a qualitative program evaluation. Data collection involved individual interviews with the woman, the infant’s father, five primary healthcare providers, and five system administrators, and 11 focus groups with unit staff and other patients. Content analysis was used to guide the data analysis and develop the critical components of the program logic model. Results. A logic model that consists of input (team building, program planning, staff and patient preparation, resource management), output (logistic activities, risk management, mental healthcare, staff/other patient support, discharge preparation), and outcome (individual, provider, system, and society) components was developed. Conclusions. This study demonstrates a recovery-oriented program for a woman cohabitating with her baby in a secure forensic psychiatric rehabilitation unit. The logic model provided a comprehensive understanding of the way the recovery principles, such as shared decision-making, positive risk-taking, informed choices, and relational security, were implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Shu-Ping Chen & Wen-Pin Chang & Bryan Fleet & Santoch Rai & Steve Panteluk & Alberto Choy & DeAnn Hunter, 2021. "Is a Forensic Cohabitation Program Recovery-Oriented? A Logic Model Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:9-:d:707247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/9/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/9/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    2. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    2. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    3. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    4. Ullrich-French, Sarah & Cole, Amy N. & Montgomery, Anna K., 2016. "Evaluation development for a physical activity positive youth development program for girls," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 67-76.
    5. Sanou, Aboubakary & Kouyaté, Bocar & Bibeau, Gilles & Nguyen, Vinh-Kim, 2011. "Evaluability Assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: Intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 303-315, August.
    6. Judy Smeed & Terri Bourke & Julie Nickerson & Tracy Corsbie, 2015. "Testing Times for the Implementation of Curriculum Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, April.
    7. Fletcher-Hildebrand, Shaneice & Williamson, Linzi & Lawson, Karen & Dell, Colleen, 2023. "Remotely and collaboratively evaluating a campus-based therapy dog program during the COVID-19 pandemic," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    8. Adler, Marina A., 2002. "The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 203-213, August.
    9. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    10. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    11. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    12. Johnson, Knowlton & Hays, Carol & Center, Hayden & Daley, Charlotte, 2004. "Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 135-149, May.
    13. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    14. Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Baruth, Meghan & Dowda, Marsha, 2014. "Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-102.
    15. Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    16. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    17. Lenihan, Helena, 2011. "Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a 'new' way of doing it?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 323-332, November.
    18. Gretchen B. Jordan, 2013. "Logic modeling: a tool for designing program evaluations," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 6, pages 143-165, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Cole, Donald C. & Levin, Carol & Loechl, Cornelia & Thiele, Graham & Grant, Frederick & Girard, Aimee Webb & Sindi, Kirimi & Low, Jan, 2016. "Planning an integrated agriculture and health program and designing its evaluation: Experience from Western Kenya," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 11-22.
    20. Elizabeth O. Ofili & Daniel Sarpong & Richard Yanagihara & Paul B. Tchounwou & Emma Fernández-Repollet & Mohamad Malouhi & Muhammed Y. Idris & Kimberly Lawson & Nadine H. Spring & Brian M. Rivers, 2021. "The Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Consortium: A Blueprint for Inclusive Excellence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-17, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:9-:d:707247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.