Discussion
The discussion section of this paper offered provided insightful ideas,
connections, and observations. Firstly, Ware et al. (1999) identified the limitation of their
study as the lack of generalization in ethnographic research. However, the paper did
not discuss in detail how each mental health setting is unique, and so the findings in
one setting cannot be applied to another, a critical demerit of ethnographic research
(Howard, 2021). With regards to the delimitation, although it is not directly mentioned, it
is how the study focused on a specific level of service provision (individuals and
providers). It should be noted that the authors acknowledged that other levels of
service, for example the program level provides scope for future research.
Importantly, the discussion focuses on the identified mechanisms from the
results, thus aligning with the objective. The overall conclusion of the paper highlighted
the importance of operationalizing the concept of continuity of care in mental health
services research. This conclusion is in line with the research’s main objective which is
to create a standardized measure of continuity of care in mental health services
research.
Overall, the discussion seems well-structured and coherently analyzes the
findings. It addresses the research question by examining the components of continuity
at the client-provider level, highlighting specific mechanisms that contribute to continuity
of care. Interestingly, the discussion culminated by stating how the mechanisms,
whether at the client-provider level or the service-organization level, are interdependent.
Significance
This research paper on the meaning of continuity of care significantly adds to the
mental health services field by providing understanding on how continuity of care is
provided. The paper specifically highlights mechanisms such as pinch hitting, smoothing
transitions, and troubleshooting thereby contributing to the existing body of knowledge
that exists on continuity of care. Additionally, this research provides a practical
approach, with concrete markers, to develop a meaning for the concept of continuity of
care. With that, the study manages to create a linkage between the theory and the
practical application, as it relates to operationalizing the concept of continuity of care.
Finally, the study informs the mental health services field on the important concept of
continuity of care. With that, policy makers can better plan to improve the quality of
services provided in mental health.
Conclusion
This study is distinctive from other studies because it delves into the day-to-day
interactions between mental health caregivers and their clients. While previous studies
by Torrey et al. (1986) as cited in Ware et al. (1999) focused on continuity of care at the
organization level, and Wolkon (1970) as cited in Ware et al. (1999) examined it at the
linkage level, this study investigates it at an interpersonal level.
In the study of research methods, this article on the meaning of continuity of care
in mental health services has significant value. By examining how the study adequately
utilizes ethnography to explore the meaning of continuity of care, one can understand
how to use ethnography in research. The study also showed how the concept of
continuity of care was operationalized by identifying specific mechanisms. As such, one
can understand how to operationalize theoretical concepts into standardized measures.