ArticleBMC health services research2025
Perspectives on internal vs. external facilitation for implementing guidelines for recovery-oriented practice: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tensions in patient involvement and engagement in health research and development: a qualitative interview study with key actors.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeven organizations supporting adults with mental health challenges collaborated with researchers to implement Chapter Six of Canada's Guidelines for Recovery-Oriented Practice. An implementation strategy was developed that combined external facilitation, mixed Implementation Teams, a 12-meeting planning process, and ongoing coaching. This paper focuses on the facilitation component, specifically exploring participants' perspectives on internal versus external facilitation within Implementation Teams.
methodsForty semi-structured individual online interviews were conducted with 32 members of Implementation Teams, including service users, providers, family members, managers, and knowledge users, along with eight researchers who acted as external facilitators. Participants discussed their experiences of implementing the guidelines supported by an external facilitator and were asked to consider how their experience may differ if it had been led by an internal facilitator.
resultsThematic analysis identified seven themes relating to what was perceived as important about internal versus external facilitation: (1) Effect of facilitator position (external versus internal); (2) Flattening power hierarchies; (3) Enacting cultural shifts; (4) Understanding context; (5) Encouraging candour; (6) Building relationships, and (7) Internal facilitator identity and influence. These highlight how participants valued different skills, knowledge, and attributes in each scenario, with responses varying depending on the participant's identity. No clear preference emerged for either approach. Instead, participants debated the benefits and drawbacks of both, where insider knowledge vied with outsider neutrality for primacy.
conclusionsWhether facilitation is internal or external, its effectiveness relies on the facilitator's ability to establish rapport, develop allies, and foster unity between Implementation Team members and the implementation setting itself. A blended approach, which integrates the strengths of both internal and external facilitators, may offer the most effective model for supporting the implementation of recovery-oriented practice. AUTHOR(S): Myra Piat
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.