LAUSR

OBJECTIVE The study purpose was to assess the feasibility, advantages/disadvantages, and factors that hinder or facilitate the implementation of illness management and recovery (IMR) within assertive community treatment (ACT) teams. METHOD A qualitative study was conducted with 11 ACT teams that implemented IMR. We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 17 persons enrolled in services and 55 ACT staff in individual and focus groups. Questions were designed to assess perceptions of IMR implementation, effects of IMR, staff training considerations, and recommendations. Data were analyzed using an inductive, consensus-building, thematic analysis, which included multiple research staff reviewing interview transcripts and field notes, developing and refining a codebook, constructing data summaries, and thematic synthesis. RESULTS The analysis revealed six major themes: (a) a generally positive fit exists between the two models and population served, (b) both people with serious mental illness and staff benefited from ACT + IMR, (c) ACT teams encountered significant implementation barriers, (d) relationships and engagement with participants facilitated implementation, (e) taking a flexible approach to IMR and ACT improved implementation, and (f) programs should focus on greater integration of IMR within ACT teams. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE While there can be barriers to implementing IMR within ACT teams, there is generally a positive fit, it is feasible to implement, and it offers meaningful benefits. ACT teams should improve their recovery orientation by more widespread implementation of IMR. Future research on ACT + IMR should include mixed-methods approaches, implementation methodologies to identify barriers and facilitators, and idiographic measures that capture the individualized recovery goals of people with serious mental illness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).