| |
yesn (%) |
Undecidedn (%) |
Non (%) |
Totaln (%) |
| Acceptability ofthe HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| I am satisfied with the toolkit |
75 (79.8) |
16 (17.0) |
3 (3.2) |
94 (100) |
| I have the intention to use the toolkit |
73 (78.5) |
17 (18.3) |
3 (3.2) |
93 (100) |
| The toolkit fits within the organizational culture of the facility |
62 (66.7) |
19 (20.4) |
12 (12.9) |
93 (100) |
| Content of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The content of the toolkit is interesting |
87(91.6) |
2 (2.1) |
6 (6.3) |
95 (100) |
| Too much of the content is not useful |
31 (33.3) |
22 (23.7) |
40 (43.1) |
93 (100) |
| The content is relevant forthe facility |
64(67.4) |
25 (26.3) |
6 (6.3) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses patient needs |
60 (63.2) |
14 (14.7) |
21 (22.1) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses the aims of the staff |
66 (69.5) |
18 (18.9) |
11 (11.6) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses the aims of the facility |
60 (63.2) |
23 (24.2) |
12 (12.6) |
95 (100) |
| Applicability ofthe HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| I found the toolkit easy to follow |
72 (77.4) |
13 (14.0) |
8 (8.6) |
93 (100) |
| The delivery ofthe program was well organized |
84 (90.3) |
6 (6.4) |
3 (3.2) |
93 (100) |
| There were enough means and resources to carry out the toolkit |
76 (80.9) |
14 (14.9) |
4 (4.3) |
94 (100) |
| The toolkit is suitable for patients with severe mental illness |
69 (73.4) |
19 (20.2) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| Source material |
|
|
|
|
| I found the instructions in the toolkit useful |
90 (95.7) |
2 (2.1) |
2 (2.1) |
94 (100) |
| The information in the toolkit was clearly presented |
86 (91.5) |
6 (6.4) |
2 (2.1) |
94 (100) |
| The paper version ofthe toolkit is usable |
81 (86.2) |
8 (8.5) |
5 (5.3) |
94 (100) |
| The electronic version ofthe toolkit is usable |
18 (28.6) |
31 (49.2) |
14 (22.2) |
63 (100) |
| Effectiveness of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’ physical health |
61 (64.9) |
23 (24.5) |
10 (10.6) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’ well-being |
68 (72.3) |
20 (21.3) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’health behaviour |
61 (64.9) |
27 (28.7) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| Adverse effects of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients‘physical health |
3 (3.2) |
25 (26.6) |
66 (70.2) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients’well-being |
7 (7.4) |
25 (26.6) |
62 (66.0) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients’ health behavior |
2 (2.1) |
26 (27.7) |
66 (70.2) |
94 (100) |
| 1) Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Lithuania |
| |
yesn (%) |
Undecidedn (%) |
Non (%) |
Totaln (%) |
| Acceptability ofthe HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| I am satisfied with the toolkit |
75 (79.8) |
16 (17.0) |
3 (3.2) |
94 (100) |
| I have the intention to use the toolkit |
73 (78.5) |
17 (18.3) |
3 (3.2) |
93 (100) |
| The toolkit fits within the organizational culture of the facility |
62 (66.7) |
19 (20.4) |
12 (12.9) |
93 (100) |
| Content of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The content of the toolkit is interesting |
87(91.6) |
2 (2.1) |
6 (6.3) |
95 (100) |
| Too much of the content is not useful |
31 (33.3) |
22 (23.7) |
40 (43.1) |
93 (100) |
| The content is relevant forthe facility |
64(67.4) |
25 (26.3) |
6 (6.3) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses patient needs |
60 (63.2) |
14 (14.7) |
21 (22.1) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses the aims of the staff |
66 (69.5) |
18 (18.9) |
11 (11.6) |
95 (100) |
| The content addresses the aims of the facility |
60 (63.2) |
23 (24.2) |
12 (12.6) |
95 (100) |
| Applicability ofthe HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| I found the toolkit easy to follow |
72 (77.4) |
13 (14.0) |
8 (8.6) |
93 (100) |
| The delivery ofthe program was well organized |
84 (90.3) |
6 (6.4) |
3 (3.2) |
93 (100) |
| There were enough means and resources to carry out the toolkit |
76 (80.9) |
14 (14.9) |
4 (4.3) |
94 (100) |
| The toolkit is suitable for patients with severe mental illness |
69 (73.4) |
19 (20.2) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| Source material |
|
|
|
|
| I found the instructions in the toolkit useful |
90 (95.7) |
2 (2.1) |
2 (2.1) |
94 (100) |
| The information in the toolkit was clearly presented |
86 (91.5) |
6 (6.4) |
2 (2.1) |
94 (100) |
| The paper version ofthe toolkit is usable |
81 (86.2) |
8 (8.5) |
5 (5.3) |
94 (100) |
| The electronic version ofthe toolkit is usable |
18 (28.6) |
31 (49.2) |
14 (22.2) |
63 (100) |
| Effectiveness of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’ physical health |
61 (64.9) |
23 (24.5) |
10 (10.6) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’ well-being |
68 (72.3) |
20 (21.3) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had positive effects on patients’health behaviour |
61 (64.9) |
27 (28.7) |
6 (6.4) |
94 (100) |
| Adverse effects of the HELPS toolkit |
|
|
|
|
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients‘physical health |
3 (3.2) |
25 (26.6) |
66 (70.2) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients’well-being |
7 (7.4) |
25 (26.6) |
62 (66.0) |
94 (100) |
| The application of the HELPS toolkit had negative effects on patients’ health behavior |
2 (2.1) |
26 (27.7) |
66 (70.2) |
94 (100) |
| 1) Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Lithuania |
