Dataset Information

Process evaluation of Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): the Norwegian version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC) is the Norwegian adaptation of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT). Thus far, evaluations of PMHC have mostly focused on the effectiveness, rather than on contextual and implementation processes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to do a process evaluation and examine: 1) To what extent do the services follow guidelines provided by the Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH), 2) what the therapists experienced as important barriers and facilitators in implementing the service, and 3) client treatment satisfaction and its associations with baseline variables. METHOD:The present study uses data from 526 clients who received PMHC treatment in the municipalities of Sandnes and Kristiansand. The therapists completed questionnaires about each client's course of treatment. We conducted semi-structured interviews with the therapists and analysed them using thematic analysis. Data from client questionnaires were used to report descriptive sample statistics including symptom severity and treatment satisfaction. Linear regression was adopted to examine the associations between client treatment satisfaction and baseline characteristics. RESULTS:Several aspects of PMHC were implemented in line with the guidelines provided by NDH. Importantly, both services reached out to the intended target group, and could further be characterized as low-threshold with relatively short waiting times (median waiting time between initial contact and treatment start was 27?days, IQR 18-39), no waiting lists, and frequent use of self-referral (33.3%). From the client perspective, results indicated a high degree of treatment satisfaction (Mean?=?3.93 (SD?=?.71, range 1-5)), and this was true across demographic characteristics and symptom severity at baseline (all p >?.05). Most notable challenges that came forward were; the low provision of guided self-help (received by only 1.0% of clients), the lack of focus on work participation (low to some degree of focus in 70.8% among sick-listed clients), the collaboration with other services (no collaboration in 85.3% of the clients), and some aspects regarding future development of the service. CONCLUSION:Both sites managed to implement key aspects of PMHC in line with the guidelines, but further development of the program is warranted. Discussion of challenges and future recommendations are presented.

SUBMITTER: Lervik LV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7236093 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Process evaluation of Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): the Norwegian version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.

Lervik Linn Vathne LV Knapstad Marit M Smith Otto Robert Frans ORF

BMC health services research 20200519 1

<h4>Background</h4>Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC) is the Norwegian adaptation of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT). Thus far, evaluations of PMHC have mostly focused on the effectiveness, rather than on contextual and implementation processes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to do a process evaluation and examine: 1) To what extent do the services follow guidelines provided by the Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH), 2) what the therapists experienced as important ...[more]

PMID: 32430000

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The innovative treatment model Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) and its Norwegian adaptation, Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), have been evaluated by cohort studies only. Albeit yielding promising results, the extent to which these are attributable to the treatment thus remains unsettled. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effectiveness of the PMHC treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) at 6-month follow-up. METHODS:A randomized controlled trial with parallel assignment was performed in two PMHC sites (Sandnes and Kristiansand) and enrolled clients between November 9, 2015 and August 31, 2017. Participants were 681 adults (aged ?18 years) considered for admission to PMHC due to anxiety and/or mild to moderate depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] scores above cutoff). These were randomly assigned (70:30 ratio; n = 463 to PMHC, n = 218 to TAU) with simple randomization within each site with no further constraints. The main outcomes were recovery rates and changes in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) between baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome data were available for 73/67% in PMHC/TAU. Sensitivity analyses based on observed patterns of missingness were also conducted. Secondary outcomes were work participation, functional status, health-related quality of life, and mental well-being. RESULTS:A reliable recovery rate of 58.5% was observed in the PMHC group and of 31.9% in the TAU group, equaling a between-group effect size of 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.85, p < 0.001). The differences in degree of improvement between PMHC and TAU yielded an effect size of -0.88 (95% CI -1.23 to -0.43, p < 0.001) for PHQ-9 and -0.60 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.30, p < 0.001) for GAD-7 in favor of PMHC. All sensitivity analyses pointed in the same direction, with small variations in point estimates. Findings were slightly more robust for depressive than anxiety symptoms. PMHC was also more effective than TAU in improving all secondary outcomes, except for work participation (z = 0.415, p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS:The PMHC treatment was substantially more effective than TAU in alleviating the burden of anxiety and depression. This adaptation of IAPT is considered a viable supplement to existing health services to increase access to effective treatment for adults who suffer from anxiety and mild to moderate depression. A potential effect on work participation needs further examination.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prompt mental health care (PMHC) is a Norwegian initiative, inspired by the English 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapy' (IAPT), aimed to provide low-threshold access to primary care treatment for persons with symptoms of anxiety and depression. The objectives of the present study are to describe the PMHC service, to examine changes in symptoms of anxiety and depression following treatment and to identify predictors of change, using data from the 12 first pilot sites. METHODS:A prospective cohort design was used. All participants were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, before each treatment session and at the end of treatment. Effect sizes (ES) for pre-post changes and recovery rates were calculated based on the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. Multiple imputation (MI) was used in order to handle missing data. We examined predictors through latent difference score models and reported the contribution of each predictor level in terms of ES. RESULTS:In total, N =?2512 clients received treatment at PMHC between October 2014 and December 2016, whereof 61% consented to participate. The changes from pre- to post-treatment were large for symptoms of both depression (ES?=?1.1) and anxiety (ES?=?1.0), with an MI-based reliable recovery rate of 58%. The reliable recovery rate comparable to IAPT based on last-observation-carried-forward was 48%. The strongest predictors for less improvement were having immigrant background (ES change depression -?0.27, ES change anxiety -?0.26), being out of work at baseline (ES change depression -?0.18, ES change anxiety -?0.35), taking antidepressants (ES change anxiety -?0.36) and reporting bullying as cause of problems (ES change depression -?0.29). Taking sleep medication did on the other hand predict more improvement (ES change depression 0.23, ES change anxiety 0.45). CONCLUSIONS:Results in terms of clinical outcomes were promising, compared to both the IAPT pilots and other benchmark samples. Though all groups of clients showed substantial improvements, having immigrant background, being out of work, taking antidepressant medication and reporting bullying as cause stood out as predictors of poorer treatment response. Altogether, PMHC was successfully implemented in Norway. Areas for improvement of the service are discussed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anxiety and depression are associated with substantial functional impairment. Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), the Norwegian adaptation of IAPT is currently piloted across Norway, as a means to improve access to evidence-based care for adults with anxiety disorders (including subthreshold cases) and minor to moderate depression. The aims of the current paper were to examine the change in work status and functional status from pre- to post-treatment and 12 months post-treatment among clients at the first 12 PMHC pilot sites, and whether degree of change differed across sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS:A prospective cohort design was used, including working age clients receiving treatment between October 2014 and December 2016 (n = 1446, participation rate = 61%). Work status and functional status were self-reported, the latter by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Changes in work status and WSAS score were examined through multilevel models based on maximum likelihood estimation. Likelihood ratio tests were performed to determine whether the interaction between time and the respective background variables were statistically significant. RESULTS:A substantial increase in regular work participation was observed from pre- to post-treatment, which further had increased at 12 months post-treatment. The increase was driven by a corresponding reduction in proportion of clients working and receiving benefits (OR 0.38 [0.29-0.50] baseline to final treatment, OR = 0.19 [0.12-0.32] final treatment to 12-months post-treatment), while no statistically significant change was observed in proportion out of work. Large improvement (ES = - 0.89) in WSAS score was observed from pre- to post treatment. WSAS score at 12 months post-treatment remained at the post-treatment level. CONCLUSIONS:Previous research has shown substantial symptom improvement among clients receiving treatment in PMHC. The current findings indicate that PMHC might also be able to aid adults struggling with mild to moderate anxiety and depression in returning to usual level of functioning. The degree to which the observed improvements are attributable to the treatment need nonetheless to be confirmed in a trial including a control group and with more complete follow-up data from registries.

Project description:England's national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme advocates stepped care as its organizational delivery of psychological therapies to common mental health problems. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of stepped care as a service delivery model, heterogeneity of definition and differences in model implementation in both research and routine practice, hence outcome comparison in terms of effectiveness of model is difficult. Despite sound evidence of the efficacy of low intensity interventions there appears to be a perpetuation of the notion that severity and complexity should only be treated by a high intensity intervention through the continuation of a stratified care model. Yet no psychotherapy treatment is found to be more superior to another, and not enough is known about what works for whom to aid the matching of treatment decision. In the absence of understanding precise treatment factors optimal for recovery, it may be useful to better understand the impact of a service delivery model, and whether different models achieve different outcomes. This study aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the stepped care definition and delivery, and explores the impact on clinical outcomes where different types of stepped care have been implemented within the same service. An observational cohort study analysed retrospective data (n = 16,723) over a 4 year period, in a single IAPT service, where delivery changed from one type of stepped care model to another. We compared the outcomes of treatment completers with a stratified care model and a progression care model. We also explored the assumption that patients who score severe on psychological measures, and therefore are potentially complex, would achieve better outcomes in a stratified model. Outcomes in each model type were compared, alongside baseline factor variables. A significant association was observed between a recovery outcome and model type, with patients 1.5 times more likely to recover in the progression delivery model. The potential implications are that with a progression stepped care model of service delivery, more patients can be treated with a lower intensity intervention, even with initial severe presentations, ensuring that only those that need high intensity CBT or equivalent are stepped up. This could provide services with an effective clinical model that is efficient and potentially more cost effective.

Project description:Providing good quality psychiatric services to patients who attend general hospital has been an area that has attracted a lot of interest.(1)(2) We know that more than one quarter of general hospital patients have a mental disorder, mental ill health impedes recovery from physical illness, and mental disorders are often unrecognised in patients with physical illness. By improving the quality of our service we hope that we can achieve better integration with the medical teams and thus tackle the aforementioned problems.(3)(4) In our trust, relevant work has been completed by the clinical health psychology team in Cardiac Rehabilitation wards. Our liaison team provides psychiatric assessment and treatment to inpatients at St Bartholomew's hospital that have been referred to us by our medical colleagues. We first observed that not all the medical teams are fully aware of the referral process and that they were keen on having training sessions and further education on the area of psychological medicine. Another area that we focused on during this process was making sure that we maintained quality of service provision while our service was in transition due to relocation. Ward based information sessions and meetings were held. An introductory session to psychiatry was also provided on medical induction. Information leaflets with referral process and contact numbers were produced for staff at ward level and for administrative support. A liaison psychiatry pathway was created to incorporate the changes that occurred after the relocation of our service. Following these interventions there was significant improvement among the staff in recognising and referring patients with psychiatric issues through the use of liaison psychiatry pathway. There was also increase in satisfaction amongst staff. Education improves understanding and awareness of mental illness and a care pathway focuses attention on this area, improving patient safety and quality of care.(5)(6).

Project description:IntroductionAt least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap.Methods and analysisThis is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery.Ethics and disseminationThe study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers.Trial registration numberISRCTN93895792.

Dataset Information

Process evaluation of Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): the Norwegian version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.

Publications

Process evaluation of Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): the Norwegian version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets