|
Tischler et al. A family WOE: Low Views studies |
Housing dept, |
1) Support with 2) Parent 3) Personal I 4) Assessment 5) Other |
The FSW co- |
Family Support |
Joint funding |
The appointment of |
(a)families were recruited to (b) Entry criteria = eligible |
No statistical |
|
(c) "Families were recruited Mechanisms to encourage the |
Perception |
1. conducting interviews at the
hostel;
2. "the clients’ expectations of
the intervention were explored
after discussing previous help
received and the help they
felt they required. Their
experiences of the intervention
and the difference it made
were documented. The help the
clients require in future was also
explored” (p 329)
(d)Leicester, England
Key Services provided∕how they work
(a) How were families identified by the service
providers as HCHHHU, that is as potential
beneficiaries of the integrated service provision
(i.e. how those that provide the services decide
that these particular families needed these
services)? This may include self-referral, but if
families are referred by other agencies or identified
by the service provider(s) want to know on what
basis or how diagnosis of need was made. Please
note if this information is not given.
(b) What entry 'entry criteria’ exist for the
services?
Please describe in full. Please note if none or if
not given state not given.
(c) Howwere service recipients 'recruited’ to
and 'maintained’ in service? - i.e. Howwere
families 'persuaded’ to participate in service
and to continue participating in service. This
may include incentives, sanctions, compulsion,
through mechanisms such as proactive contact
on the part of service staff, use of techniques
such as participant involvement in management
organisation of services, peer support etc.
Please give as much detail as possible.
(d) Where were services located?
Please give exact location of services (i.e.
country and town)
Appendix 4 Summary of in-depth studies 69