Dataset Information

Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A documented gap in support exists for service users following discharge from acute mental health services, and structured interventions to reduce relapse are rarely provided. Peer-facilitated self-management interventions have potential to meet this need, but evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This paper describes the development of a peer-provided self-management intervention for mental health service users following discharge from crisis resolution teams (CRTs). METHODS:A five-stage iterative mixed-methods approach of sequential data collection and intervention development was adopted, following the development and piloting stages of the MRC framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evidence review (stage 1) included systematic reviews of both peer support and self-management literature. Interviews with CRT service users (n = 41) regarding needs and priorities for support following CRT discharge were conducted (stage 2). Focus group consultations (n = 12) were held with CRT service-users, staff and carers to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a proposed intervention, and to refine intervention organisation and content (stage 3). Qualitative evaluation of a refined, peer-provided, self-management intervention involved qualitative interviews with CRT service user participants (n = 9; n = 18) in feasibility testing (stage 4) and a pilot trial (stage 5), and a focus group at each stage with the peer worker providers (n = 4). RESULTS:Existing evidence suggests self-management interventions can reduce relapse and improve recovery. Initial interviews and focus groups indicated support for the overall purpose and planned content of a recovery-focused self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care adapted from an existing resource: The personal recovery plan (developed by Repper and Perkins), and for peer support workers (PSWs) as providers. Participant feedback after feasibility testing was positive regarding facilitation of the intervention by PSWs; however, the structured self-management booklet was underutilised. Modifications to the self-management intervention manual and PSWs' training were made before piloting, which confirmed the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention for testing in a future, definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS:A manualised intervention and operating procedures, focusing on the needs and priorities of the target client group, have been developed through iterative stages of intervention development and feedback for testing in a trial context. Trial Registration ISRCTN01027104 date of registration: 11/10/2012.

SUBMITTER: Milton A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5680762 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis.

Milton Alyssa A Lloyd-Evans Brynmor B Fullarton Kate K Morant Nicola N Paterson Bethan B Hindle David D Kelly Kathleen K Mason Oliver O Lambert Marissa M Johnson Sonia S

BMC research notes 20171109 1

<h4>Background</h4>A documented gap in support exists for service users following discharge from acute mental health services, and structured interventions to reduce relapse are rarely provided. Peer-facilitated self-management interventions have potential to meet this need, but evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This paper describes the development of a peer-provided self-management intervention for mental health service users following discharge from crisis resolution teams (CRTs).<h ...[more]

PMID: 29122001

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough supported self-management is a well-recognised part of chronic disease management, it has not been routinely used as part of healthcare for adults with a learning disability. We developed an intervention for adults with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, building on the principles of supported self-management with reasonable adjustments made for the target population.MethodsIn five steps, we:Clarified the principles of supported self-management as reported in the published literatureIdentified the barriers to effective self-management of type 2 diabetes in adults with a learning disabilityReviewed existing materials that aim to support self-management of diabetes for people with a learning disabilitySynthesised the outputs from the first three phases and identified elements of supported self-management that were (a) most relevant to the needs of our target population and (b) most likely to be acceptable and useful to themImplemented and field tested the intervention.ResultsThe final intervention had four standardised components: (1) establishing the participant's daily routines and lifestyle, (2) identifying supporters and their roles, (3) using this information to inform setting realistic goals and providing materials to the patient and supporter to help them be achieved and (4) monitoring progress against goals.Of 41 people randomised in a feasibility RCT, thirty five (85%) completed the intervention sessions, with over three quarters of all participants (78%) attending at least three sessions.Twenty-three out of 40 (58%) participants were deemed to be very engaged with the sessions and 12/40 (30%) with the materials; 30 (73%) participants had another person present with them during at least one of their sessions; 15/41 (37%) were reported to have a very engaged main supporter, and 18/41 (44%) had a different person who was not their main supporter but who was engaged in the intervention implementation.ConclusionsThe intervention was feasible to deliver and, as judged by participation and engagement, acceptable to participants and those who supported them.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21/01/2013).

Project description:IntroductionCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide assessment and intensive home treatment in a crisis, aiming to offer an alternative for people who would otherwise require a psychiatric inpatient admission. They are available in most areas in England. Despite some evidence for their clinical and cost-effectiveness, recurrent concerns are expressed regarding discontinuity with other services and lack of focus on preventing future relapse and readmission to acute care. Currently evidence on how to prevent readmissions to acute care is limited. Self-management interventions, involving supporting service users in recognising and managing signs of their own illness and in actively planning their recovery, have some supporting evidence, but have not been tested as a means of preventing readmission to acute care in people leaving community crisis care. We thus proposed the current study to test the effectiveness of such an intervention. We selected peer support workers as the preferred staff to deliver such an intervention, as they are well-placed to model and encourage active and autonomous recovery from mental health problems.Methods and analysisThe CORE (CRT Optimisation and Relapse Prevention) self-management trial compares the effectiveness of a peer-provided self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care, with treatment as usual supplemented by a booklet on self-management. The planned sample is 440 participants, including 40 participants in an internal pilot. The primary outcome measure is whether participants are readmitted to acute care over 1 year of follow-up following entry to the trial. Secondary outcomes include self-rated recovery at 4 and at 18 months following trial entry, measured using the Questionnaire on the Process of Recovery. Analysis will follow an intention to treatment principle. Random effects logistic regression modelling with adjustment for clustering by peer support worker will be used to test the primary hypothesis.Ethics and disseminationThe CORE self-management trial was approved by the London Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 12/LO/0988). A Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee oversee the progress of the study. We will report on the results of the clinical trial, as well as on the characteristics of the participants and their associations with relapse.Trial registration numberISRCTN 01027104;pre-results stage.

Project description:The need to transform mental health care toward person-centered, recovery-based, and network-oriented care is recognized worldwide. Open Dialogue (OD) is seen as a hopeful approach in the context of this transformation and is introduced in countries around the globe. Five Dutch mental health care organizations spread over the Netherlands introduced the Peer-supported Open Dialogue (POD) approach, which adds an explicit role of peer-support workers to the OD approach. It appeared that (P)OD-trained professionals face issues in introducing the (P)OD approach in existing MHC settings. One of the reasons, which is the focus of this study, may be that they encounter difficulties in explaining to non-(P)OD-trained professionals what (P)OD entails. The main objective of this study is to provide guidance to and contribute to making (P)OD better understandable for non-(P)OD-trained professionals. In this study, we used a qualitative design and conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with POD-trained professionals with various backgrounds, to cultivate a rich understanding of which aspects could contribute to a better understanding of POD for non-POD-trained professionals. We used a hybrid approach to analyze the data, meaning that the technique of both inductive and deductive thematic analyses has been applied. From these analyses, six aspects emerged that could give guidance to and contribute to making (P)OD more understandable for non-(P)OD-trained professionals: (1) Experiencing (P)OD by attending treatment network sessions, (2) a coherent and profound narrative about (P)OD, (3) adjusting terminology to better fit the context, such as the two terms "principles" and "responsibility" in this study, (4) the order in which (P)OD elements are introduced in the narrative, (5) bringing the elements "presence," "reflecting," and "expertise by experience" more to the foreground, and (6) conceptualizing the main elements in a "talking paper." A better understanding of (P)OD might be one of the building blocks for improving (P)OD adoption in existing MHC practices, which are on their way toward person-centered, recovery-based, and network-oriented care.

Project description:IntroductionDespite clinical guidelines recommendations, many relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder do not currently receive the support they need. Online information and support may offer a solution.Methods and analysisThis single-blind, parallel, online randomised controlled trial will determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) (including an online resource directory (RD)), compared with RD only, for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. Both groups continue to receive treatment as usual. Independent, web-based variable, block, individual randomisation will be used across 666 relatives. Primary outcome is distress at 24 weeks (measured by General Health Questionnaire; GHQ-28) compared between groups using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline score. Secondary clinical outcomes are carer well-being and support. Cost-effectiveness analysis will determine cost of a significant unit change (three-point reduction) in the GHQ-28. Costs include offering and supporting the intervention in the REACT arm, relevant healthcare care costs including health professional contacts, medications prescribed and time off (or ability to) work for the relative. Cost utility analysis will be calculated as the marginal cost of changes in quality-adjusted life years, based on EuroQol. We will explore relatives' beliefs, perceived coping and amount of REACT toolkit use as possible outcome mediators. We have embedded two methodological substudies in the protocol to determine the relative effectiveness of a low-value (£10) versus higher value (£20) incentive, and an unconditional versus conditional incentive, on improving follow-up rates.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has ethical approval from Lancaster National Research Ethics Service (NRES)Committee (15/NW/0732) and is overseen by an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and Trial Steering Committee. Protocol version 1.5 was approved on 9 January 2017. All updates to protocols are uploaded to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library. A full statistical analysis plan is available at https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/19975. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals (open access wherever possible). Requests for access to the data at the end of the study will be reviewed and granted where appropriate by the Trial Management Group.Trial registration numberISRCTN72019945, pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesSelf-management support aims to give people with chronic disease confidence to actively manage their disease, in partnership with their healthcare provider. A meta-review can inform policy-makers and healthcare managers about the effectiveness of self-management support strategies for people with type 2 diabetes, and which interventions work best and for whom.DesignA meta-review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed adapting Cochrane methodology.Setting and participantsEight databases were searched for systematic reviews of RCTs from January 1993 to October 2016, with a pre-publication update in April 2017. Forward citation was performed on included reviews in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Proceedings. We extracted data and assessed quality with the Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR).Primary and secondary outcome measuresGlycaemic control as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was the primary outcome. Body mass Index, lipid profiles, blood pressure and quality of life scoring were secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses reporting HbA1c were summarised in meta-forest plots; other outcomes were synthesised narratively.Results41 systematic reviews incorporating data from 459 unique RCTs in diverse socio-economic and ethnic communities across 33 countries were included. R-AMSTAR quality score ranged from 20 to 42 (maximum 44). Apart from one outlier, the majority of reviews found an HbA1c improvement between 0.2% and 0.6% (2.2-6.5 mmol/mol) at 6 months post-intervention, but attenuated at 12 and 24 months. Impact on secondary outcomes was inconsistent and generally non-significant. Diverse self-management support strategies were employed; no single approach appeared optimally effective (or ineffective). Effective programmes tended to be multi-component and provide adequate contact time (>10 hours). Technology-facilitated self-management support showed a similar impact as traditional approaches (HbA1c MD -0.21% to -0.6%).ConclusionsSelf-management interventions using a range of approaches improve short-term glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes including culturally diverse populations. These findings can inform researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals re-evaluating the provision of self-management support in routine care. Further research should consider implementation and sustainability.

Dataset Information

Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis.

Publications

Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets