File audit to assess sustained fidelity to a recovery and wellbeing oriented mental health service model: an Australian case study

Table 1 Mean ratings, Standard Deviations and ‘Yes’ percentages for single item GAP-IQ Fidelity ratings

GAP-IQ Assessment	2011 N = 146			2014 N = 116
GAP-IQ Assessment	% Yes	M	SD	% Yes	M	SD
1. Overall recovery vision	11.0	0.51	.69	73.3**	1.65	.64**
2. Collaboration between consumer and worker	79.5	1.60	.82	95.7**	1.91	.41**
3. Goal description	30.8	1.18	.64	77.6**	1.66	.67**
4. Goal Importance	21.9	.48	.83	46.6**	.97	.99**
5. Goal Confidence	4.1	.21	.50	85.3**	1.72	.68**
6. Timeframe for goals	3.4	.31	.54	11.2**	.28	.66
7. Level of goal attainment	13.0	.41	.71	54.3**	1.36	.77**
8. Identified barriers/ solutions	12.3	.70	.68	59.5**	1.34	.86**
9. Social support	6.2	.72	.58	55.2**	1.32	.83**
10. Monitoring	16.6	.59	.76	42.2**	1.16	.82**
11. Action plans for goals	31.7	1.10	.73	56.0**	1.38	.78**
12. Action description	39.7	1.17	.78	68.1**	1.51	.78**
13. Action how often specified	26.0	.78	.84	69.0**	1.43	.88**
14. Action when specified	21.2	.67	.81	50.9**	1.21	.88**
15. Action where specified	24.0	.77	.81	69.8**	1.42	.90**
16. Action confidence rating	32.2	.68	.93	66.4**	1.39	.89**
17. Action plan review	19.2	.53	.80	25.0	.60	.87
Total score		7.50	12.39		22.32	9.92^a

Note: Excluding the Total Score, Mean scores closer to 2 reflect greater fidelity to the CRM
^at(60) = − 10.39, ** p < .001. ** Chi-square significant at p < .001 level

ISSN: 2049-3258