Dataset Information

Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective.

ABSTRACT: Access to psychological therapies continues to be poor for people experiencing psychosis. To address this problem, researchers are developing brief interventions that address the specific symptoms associated with psychosis, i.e., hearing voices. As part of the development work for a brief Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) intervention for voices we collected qualitative data from people who hear voices (study 1) and clinicians (study 2) on the potential barriers and facilitators to implementation and engagement. Thematic analysis of the responses from both groups revealed a number of anticipated barriers to implementation and engagement. Both groups believed the presenting problem (voices and psychosis symptoms) may impede engagement. Furthermore clinicians identified a lack of resources to be a barrier to implementation. The only facilitator to engagement was reported by people who hear voices who believed a compassionate, experienced and trustworthy therapist would promote engagement. The results are discussed in relation to how these barriers could be addressed in the context of a brief intervention using CBT techniques.

SUBMITTER: Hazell CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5456317 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective.

Hazell Cassie M CM Strauss Clara C Cavanagh Kate K Hayward Mark M

PloS one 20170602 6

Access to psychological therapies continues to be poor for people experiencing psychosis. To address this problem, researchers are developing brief interventions that address the specific symptoms associated with psychosis, i.e., hearing voices. As part of the development work for a brief Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) intervention for voices we collected qualitative data from people who hear voices (study 1) and clinicians (study 2) on the potential barriers and facilitators to implementatio ...[more]

PMID: 28575094

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is offered to all patients with a psychosis diagnosis. However, only a minority of psychosis patients in England and Wales are offered CBTp. This is attributable, in part, to the resource-intensive nature of CBTp. One response to this problem has been the development of CBTp in brief formats that are targeted at a single symptom and the mechanisms that maintain distress. We have developed a brief form of CBTp for distressing voices and reported preliminary evidence for its effectiveness when delivered by highly trained therapists (clinical psychologists). This study will investigate the delivery of this intervention by a cost-effective workforce of assistant psychologists following a brief training and evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a future, definitive, randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsThis is a feasibility study for a pragmatic, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority 1:1:1 RCT comparing a Guided self-help CBT intervention for voices and treatment as usual (GiVE) to Supportive Counselling and treatment as usual (SC) to treatment as usual alone (TAU), recruiting across two sites, with blinded post-treatment and follow-up assessments. A process evaluation will quantitatively and qualitatively explore stakeholder experience.DiscussionExpected outcomes will include an assessment of the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT, and data to inform the calculation of its sample size. If evidence from a subsequent, fully powered RCT suggests that GiVE is clinically and cost-effective when delivered by briefly trained assistant psychologists, CBTp offered in these less resource-intensive forms has the potential to generate benefits for individual patients (reduced distress, enhanced recovery and enhanced quality of life), service-level patient benefit (increased access to evidence-based psychological therapies) and economic benefits to the NHS (in terms of the reduced use of mental health inpatient services).Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ISRCTN registration number: 16166070. Registered on 5 February 2019.

Project description:Background Due to scarce resources and high demand, priority setting in mental health services is necessary and inevitable. To date, no study has examined priority setting in eating disorder (ED) services specifically. Here, we evaluate the level of consensus and perceived relative importance of factors used to determine patient prioritisation in ED services, amongst clinicians and individuals with lived experience (LE) of an ED. Methods A three round Delphi study and a ranking task were used to determine the level of consensus and importance. Consensus was defined as > 80% agreement or disagreement. Items that reached consensus for agreement were ranked in order of importance from most to least important. Participants were 50 ED clinicians and 60 LE individuals. Participant retention across rounds 2, 3, and 4 were 92%, 85%, and 79%, respectively. Results Over three iterative rounds, a total of 87 statements about patient prioritisation were rated on a 5-point Likert-scale of agreement. Twenty-three items reached consensus in the clinician panel and 20 items reached consensus in the LE panel. The pattern of responding was broadly similar across the panels. The three most important items in both panels were medical risk, overall severity, and physical health deteriorating quickly. Clinicians tended to place greater emphasis on physical risk and early intervention whereas the LE panel focused more on mental health and quality of life. Conclusions Eating disorder services tend to prioritise patients based upon medical risk and severity, and then by the order in which patients are referred. Our findings align in some respects with what is observed in services, but diverge in others (e.g., prioritising on quality of life), providing important novel insights into clinician and LE opinions on waiting list prioritisation in EDs. More research is warranted to validate these findings using multi-criterion decision techniques and observational methods. We hope these findings provide a foundation for future research and encourage evidence-based conversations around priority setting in ED services. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08170-4.

Project description:Background: The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.Aims: To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.Methods: We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.Conclusion: There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.

Dataset Information

Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective.

Publications

Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets