UNASSIGNED: The authors investigated barriers to practices that promote family involvement in mental health services, focusing on individuals with severe mental illness, their families, and mental health providers. Additionally, the authors sought to identify strategies to facilitate family involvement in mental health provision to highlight the engagement process in routine practice and propose future directions for organizations to establish a family-friendly environment.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic searches for literature published from January 1990 to March 2023 were conducted in PsycInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and Scopus databases. Gray literature searches and backward and forward snowballing strategies were also used.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-six articles were reviewed, revealing contextual backgrounds and engagement practices that hindered family involvement. Inconsistencies in family involvement stemmed from organizational culture, societal attitudes, and providers\' negating of family expertise. Uncertainty regarding confidentiality policies and the absence of practice guidelines posed challenges for providers. Negative experiences of families within the mental health system along with variable commitment also hampered involvement. Some service users declined family involvement because of privacy concerns and differing expectations regarding the extent of involvement. Promoting a shared culture of family work, integrating practice standards, and engaging in professional development activities emerged as key strategies.
UNASSIGNED: A gap exists between implementing policies and practices for family involvement in mental health treatment. Without cultural and organizational shifts in support of working with families, the uptake of family involvement practices will remain inadequate. Each stakeholder has different perceptions of the barriers to family involvement, and family involvement will remain elusive without a shared agreement on its importance.

Aims: Community-based residential alternatives to hospitalization are an emerging service model. Evidence for their acceptability and effectiveness is promising but limited. Prevention and Recovery Care (PARC) services are one such residential model, offering short-term subacute treatment and care (usually between 7 and 28 days). PARC services in Victoria, Australia, are designed to support consumers with severe mental illness to either avoid a psychiatric hospital admission (step-up care) or transition from hospital back into the community (step-down care). As a precursor to a series of studies investigating the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of PARC services, we aimed to investigate whether a typology of PARC services can be developed. Methods: A manager or other appropriately knowledgeable staff member from each of the 19 adult PARC services included in the study completed a tool based on PARC operational guidelines (the Victorian PARC service mapping questionnaire) and a validated instrument measuring the quality of care in residential mental health settings (the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care, QuIRC). Thirty (of 42) stakeholders participated in a modified Delphi study to select 23 from the available 230 variables for entry into a hierarchical cluster analysis. Results: Cluster analysis produced three clusters of equal dissimilarity. At the 90% confidence level, there were four variables which were significantly different between clusters. These were the year the PARC was opened, the QuIRC Living Environment domain score, the proportion of all admissions that were a step-down admission from an inpatient unit, and how often families were invited to care meetings. Sensitivity analyses suggested the findings were robust to the method used to identify clusters. Conclusions: Although PARC services were broadly similar, their identified differences suggest there is variable model implementation across Victoria sufficient to generate a PARC service typology. This typology may prove important for interpreting differences in outcomes experienced by consumers and carers using PARC services, when applied in our analyses of service effectiveness. The value of conducting service mapping and typology studies is underscored. Further research to characterize subacute residential services, including recovery-promoting features of the built environment, is warranted.

Family inclusion in treatment planning and delivery for people living with mental illness is advocated in government policy but is yet to be widely translated into practice. While external barriers have been identified, including concerns about consumers\' best interests, little is known about consumers\' own views. This study explores consumers\' experiences and perspectives of including family in treatment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 adult consumers who could identify supportive family members. Data were analysed using constant comparative analysis. The findings indicated that the outcomes reported from family inclusion depended on who, how, how much and when family were included, and the degree of choice consumers had regarding these features For consumers to have real choice around these features, family inclusion needed to be accessible, families needed to be willing, and all parties needed to agree upon a consumer-centred purpose. Findings can aid health professionals to facilitate consumer choice.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary mental health policies require family inclusion in the design, implementation and evaluation of services.
METHODS: This scoping review considers the factors in mental health practice which either mediate or promote family inclusion. A wide range of factors are reported to obstruct family inclusion, while a smaller number of studies report that meaningful family inclusion rests on a partnership approach which values the input of families and services users.
CONCLUSIONS: When it comes to family inclusion, there is a gap between policy and service delivery practice. Changes in service delivery attitudes, values and culture are necessary to meaningfully and systematically include families and service users.