IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i4p2158244015615384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Drives Systemic Mental Health Advocates? Goals, Strategies, and Values of Australian Consumer and Carer Advocacy Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Gee
  • Craig McGarty
  • Michelle Banfield

Abstract

The consumer participation movement has growing international recognition in policy and research. Focusing on the collective context, this research systematically examines how two advocacy organizations in the Australian mental health sector are organized and motivated to advance the cause. Qualitative studies analyzed 17 strategic communication documents and nine interviews with members and staff to identify major themes relating to goals, activities, and values driving advocates and their organizations. Five major focus issues were identified: building consumer and carer participation, voice and recognition for consumers and carers, influencing and improving mental health systems, effective collaboration and partnerships, and building organizational strength. Findings demonstrate what drives consumer and carer advocates and their organizations to contribute to an organized, strong, and unified movement. While they focus on cementing genuine and effective consumer participation in health service and policy, they highly value partnerships based on mutual respect to improve mental health systems and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Gee & Craig McGarty & Michelle Banfield, 2015. "What Drives Systemic Mental Health Advocates? Goals, Strategies, and Values of Australian Consumer and Carer Advocacy Organizations," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:2158244015615384
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015615384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015615384
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015615384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana-Maria Bliuc & Craig McGarty & Emma F. Thomas & Girish Lala & Mariette Berndsen & RoseAnne Misajon, 2015. "Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 226-229, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Debra Jackson & Marie Hutchinson & Stacey Wilson, 2016. "Editorial: In defence of patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(9-10), pages 1177-1178, May.

    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. Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin, 2022. "Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2022. "Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    3. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    4. Knollenborg, Leonard & Sommer, Stephan, 2021. "Diverging beliefs on climate change and climate policy in Germany: The role of political orientations," Ruhr Economic Papers 909, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Cafferata, Alessia & Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2021. "Seeing what can(not) be seen: Confirmation bias, employment dynamics and climate change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 567-586.
    6. Colvin, R.M. & Witt, G.Bradd & Lacey, Justine, 2016. "How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 483-494.
    7. Charles Adedayo Ogunbode & Yue Liu & Nicole Tausch, 2017. "The moderating role of political affiliation in the link between flooding experience and preparedness to reduce energy use," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 445-458, December.
    8. Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M. & Westskog, Hege, 2019. "Cultural worldviews, institutional rules and the willingness to participate in green energy programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 28-38.
    9. Natalia Korcz & Jacek Koba & Agata Kobyłka & Emilia Janeczko & Joanna Gmitrowicz-Iwan, 2021. "Climate Change and Informal Education in the Opinion of Forest Users in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Richard S.J. Tol, 2019. "The elusive consensus on climate change," Working Paper Series 0319, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan, 2017. "Accepting market failure: Cultural worldviews and the opposition to corrective environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 193-204.
    12. Naseer Abbas Khan & Ali Nawaz Khan & Summan Gul, 2019. "Relationship between perception of organizational politics and organizational citizenship behavior: testing a moderated mediation model," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 122-141, April.
    13. Dino Carpentras & Adrian Lueders & Michael Quayle, 2024. "Response Item Network (ResIN): A network-based approach to explore attitude systems," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:2158244015615384. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.