Dataset Information

Effectiveness of embedding a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service in increasing preventive care provision: A randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Clinical practice guidelines recommend that community mental health services provide preventive care for clients' chronic disease risk behaviours; however, such care is often not routinely provided. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of offering clients an additional consultation with a specialist clinician embedded within a community mental health service, in increasing client-reported receipt of, and satisfaction with, preventive care. METHOD:A randomised controlled trial was undertaken in one Australian community mental health service. Participants (N = 811) were randomised to receive usual care (preventive care in routine consultations; n = 405) or usual care plus the offer of an additional consultation with a specialist preventive care clinician (n = 406). Blinded interviewers assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up the client-reported receipt of preventive care (assessment, advice and referral) for four key risk behaviours individually (smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol overconsumption and physical inactivity) and all applicable risks combined, acceptance of referrals and satisfaction with preventive care received. RESULTS:Analyses indicated significantly greater increases in 12 of the 18 preventive care delivery outcomes in the intervention compared to the usual care condition from baseline to follow-up, including assessment for all risks combined (risk ratio = 4.00; 95% confidence interval = [1.57, 10.22]), advice for all applicable risks combined (risk ratio = 2.40; 95% confidence interval = [1.89, 6.47]) and offer of referral to applicable telephone services combined (risk ratio = 20.13; 95% confidence interval = [2.56, 158.04]). For each component of care, there was a significant intervention effect for at least one of the individual risk behaviours. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with preventive care received, ranging from 77% (assessment) to 87% (referral), with no significant differences between conditions. CONCLUSION:The intervention had a significant effect on the provision of the majority of recommended elements of preventive care. Further research is needed to maximise its impact, including identifying strategies to increase client uptake.

SUBMITTER: Fehily CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7285986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines and policies direct community mental health services to provide preventive care to address chronic disease risks, however, such care is infrequently provided in routine consultations. An alternative model of care is to appoint a clinician to the dedicated role of offering and providing preventive care in an additional consultation: the 'specialist clinician' model. Economic evaluations of models of care are needed to determine the cost of adhering to guidelines and policies, and to inform pragmatic service delivery decisions. This study is an economic evaluation of the specialist clinician model; designed to achieve policy concordant preventive care delivery. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of the incremental costs, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of a 'specialist preventive care clinician' (an occupational therapist) was conducted in a randomised controlled trial, where participants were randomised to receive usual care; or usual care plus the offer of an additional preventive care consultation with the specialist clinician. The study outcome was client acceptance of referrals to two free telephone-based chronic disease prevention services. This is a key care delivery outcome mandated by the local health district policy of the service. The base case analysis assumed the mental health service cost perspective. A budget impact analysis determined the annual budget required to implement the model of care for all clients of the community mental health service over 5 years. RESULTS:There was a significantly greater increase from baseline to follow-up in the proportion of intervention participants accepting referrals to both telephone services, compared to usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $347 per additional acceptance of a referral (CI: $263-$494). The annual budget required to implement the model of care for all prospective clients was projected to be $711,446 over 5-years; resulting in 2616 accepted referrals. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluation provides key information regarding the costs for the mental health service to adhere to policy targets, indicating the model of care involved a low per client cost whilst increasing key preventive care delivery outcomes. Additional modelling is required to further explore its economic benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ACTRN12616001519448. Registered 3 November 2016, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371709.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.Methods/designA multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.DiscussionThe study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.Trial registrationAustralian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611001284954 UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER (UTN): U1111-1126-3465.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of embedding a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service in increasing preventive care provision: A randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets