Skip to main content

Table 1 Study participants for post-implementation interviews per site & stakeholder group

From: The impacts of implementing recovery innovations: a conceptual framework grounded in qualitative research

Stakeholder group

Research sites and chosen recovery innovations

Total n = gender average age (SD)

Québec (Peer workers)

Ontario (Staff recovery training)

Manitoba 1 (Peer workers)

Manitoba 2 (Staff recovery training)

New brunswick 2 (Staff recovery training)

New brunswick 1 (Family support group)

British columbia (WRAP)

Tenants / service usersa

6

1

0

2

1

2

4

16 (7F, 6 M,1 N-B, 2mis) 52.28 (16.06)

Family membersb

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

2 (2F) 61 (1.41)

Service providers

4

8

2

5

4

10

5

38 (23F, 9 M, 1 N-B, 5mis 41.9 (12.42)

Managers

5

3

3

5

1

1

3

21 (12F, 7 M, 1 PNTA, 1mis 45 (9.03)

Housing proprietors

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2 (1F, 1 M) 53.5 (10.60)

Knowledge users

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

4 (2F, 1 M, 1mis) 52.66 (11.71)

Other actors

2

1c

0

1

1c

2

1

7 (6F, 1 M) 47.71 (8.47)

Total

21

14

5

14

6

17

13

90

  1. WRAP Wellness Recovery Action Planning, N/A not applicable (housing proprietors existed only in Québec), SD Standard deviation, F female, M male, N-B non-binary, PNTA prefer not to answer, Mis missing data (not answered by participant)
  2. aFamily members in New Brunswick 1 who attended the family support group service are referred to as service users
  3. bHere family members refers to family members sitting on implementation teams
  4. cThe same trainer was hired in Ontario and New Brunswick 2 and was asked about each site in one interview