- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding approaches to staff training in dual diagnosis competencies. Methods: A search was conducted using eight databases: Informit, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Proquest, Expand, Sage, Psych info, Elsevier and Cinahl. The year range was 2005 to April 2015. An additional manual search of reference lists was conducted to ensure relevant articles were not overlooked. Results: Of 129 potential results, there were only 11 articles regarding staff training in dual diagnosis. The limited studies included problems: small sample sizes, selection biases, and questions as to validity of some capability instruments, and low inclusion of service user perspectives. Organisational challenges to greater uptake of staff training including agency size, agency willingness to change, and a need to change policies. Conclusions: There is a pressing need for more research, and quality research, in this important area of knowledge translation, dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices. In particular there is limited literature regarding the efficacy of dual diagnosis competency resources, and a gap as to use of the mentoring in dual diagnosis capacity building.
The limited literature exploring dual diagnosis capacity building and tools so far has focused on either staff capability audit tools or screening and assessment tools for use with service users. The current review findings have provided the knowledge that supervision is necessary to ensure staff feel adequately prepared for the demands of working with service users experiencing dual diagnosis. Furthermore that staff training is often not to an optimal standard, and that competent leaders are necessary to help support dual diagnosis competent staff. It is also apparent that there are organisational barriers that exist to staff competence including agency size, organisational willingness to change, and the need to change policy to make for a more inclusive atmosphere. This review confirms a gap as to whether a dual diagnosis resource which can be used in treatment with a service user can also have an impact on dual diagnosis capacity.