|
The Process of Mental Health Recovery and Resiliency in Children and Adolescents
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Erica Gosselin,
Mental Health Center of Denver,
erica.gosselin@mhcd.org
|
| Riley Rhodes,
Mental Health Center of Denver,
riley.rhodes@mhcd.org
|
| Kate DeRoche,
Mental Health Center of Denver,
kathryn.deroche@mhcd.org
|
| Antonio Olmos,
Mental Health Center of Denver,
antonio.olmos@mhcd.org
|
| Abstract:
Utilizing constructivism grounded theory; researchers at the Mental Health Center of Denver investigated the process of mental health recovery/resiliency in children/adolescents. Data, gathered through interviews with children/adolescents currently receiving mental health services, parent/guardians of children/adolescents receiving services, teachers of children/adolescents receiving services and child/adolescent clinicians providing mental health services, was fully transcribed including memo-writing by the interviewers. Four types of grounded theory coding, described by Charmaz (2006), were followed to create a preliminary theory of the process of mental health recovery/resiliency in children/adolescents. Future research will continue the qualitative investigation as well as the development of a quantitative measure(s) of mental health recovery/resiliency.
|
|
Co-occurring Disorders: Should We Have Different Outcome Measures?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Minakshi Tikoo,
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services,
minakshi.tikoo@po.state.ct.us
|
| Abstract:
This paper raises the question of why performance outcome measures for people with co-occurring disorders should be different. Providing services to and recognizing the needs of people with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders has been central to the current administration, resulting in policies and special initiatives for this population and a push to collect outcome measures. This paper addresses the need for the field to 1) pause and think about why we want to use outcome measures, 2) limit the number of measures to what the system intends to monitor, 3) understand the “value” added by collecting new and different measures, and 4) understand the cost implications of asking states to modify their data systems to track additional consumer data.
|
|
Real Time Evaluation of a Wraparound Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Brian Pagkos,
University at Buffalo,
pagkos@buffalo.edu
|
| Heidi Milch,
Gateway-Longview Inc,
hmilch@gateway-longview.org
|
| Mansoor Kazi,
University at Buffalo,
mkazi@buffalo.edu
|
| Abstract:
The presenters will discuss the application of a feasible, innovative methodology to evaluate a wraparound program that provides individualized services to youth with serious emotional disturbances. Through the use of repeated measures, collection of contextual information, single system design and binary logistic regression, greater understanding of program outcomes is achieved. The results of the evaluation will be presented along with the development of the core of the evaluation, the collaboration between a university research center and a not-for-profit social service agency.
|
|
Tools for a Mixed Method Approach to Understanding Trajectories of Youth Movement in Out-of-home Care Settings
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Keren Vergon,
University of South Florida,
vergon@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Norin Dollard,
University of South Florida,
dollard@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Ren Chen,
University of South Florida,
rchen@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Mary Armstrong,
University of South Florida,
armstron@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Abstract:
This paper presents the use of Markov Modeling, Agent-Based Modeling, and Ethnographic Interviewing techniques to understand youth movement into, within, and out of Medicaid-funded out-of-home mental health treatment settings in Florida. Mental health, child welfare, and justice system administrative data sets were used to model movements for youth (N=1919). Findings showed that Inpatient, Therapeutic Group Care, and Therapeutic Foster Care are relatively stable placements with 95% of youth found in the same type of location seven days after the first observation; 2/3 of youth leave these placements for less restrictive treatments. Several unexpected youth movements were observed: youth moving directly from the community without mental health services into Inpatient care; youth cycling between justice locations and Inpatient care; and youth leaving Inpatient care and moving directly into the community without mental health services. Discussion includes how these methodological techniques can complement each other and next steps for future research.
|
| | | |