Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Emergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders' wellbeing and related health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a tertiary service resilience intervention compared to psychoeducation for improving psychological outcomes among emergency workers. METHODS:We conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Minim software was used to randomly allocate police, ambulance, fire, and search and rescue services personnel, who were not suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, to Mind's group intervention or to online psychoeducation on a 3:1 basis. The resilience intervention was group-based and included stress management and mindfulness tools for reducing stress. It was delivered by trained staff at nine centres across England in six sessions, one per week for six weeks. The comparison intervention was psychoeducation about stress and mental health delivered online, one module per week for six weeks. Primary outcomes were assessed by self-report and included wellbeing, resilience, self-efficacy, problem-solving, social capital, confidence in managing mental health, and number of days off work due to illness. Follow-up was conducted at three months. Blinding of participants, researchers and outcome assessment was not possible due to the type of interventions. RESULTS:A total of 430 participants (resilience intervention N = 317; psychoeducation N = 113) were randomised and included in intent-to-treat analyses. Linear Mixed-Effects Models did not show a significant difference between the interventions, at either the post-intervention or follow-up time points, on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS:The limited success of this intervention is consistent with the wider literature. Future refinements to the intervention may benefit from targeting predictors of resilience and mental ill health. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277.

SUBMITTER: Wild J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7660584 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.

Wild Jennifer J El-Salahi Shama S Degli Esposti Michelle M Thew Graham R GR

PloS one 20201112 11

<h4>Background</h4>Emergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders' wellbeing and related health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a tertiary service resilience intervention compared to psychoeducation for improving psycholog ...[more]

PMID: 33180798

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate uptake, risk factor detection and management from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check (HC). DESIGN:This is a quasi-randomised controlled trial where participants were allocated to five cohorts based on birth year. Four cohorts were invited for an NHS HC between April 2011 and March 2015. SETTING:151 general practices in Hampshire, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS:366?005 participants born 1 April 1940-31 March 1976 eligible for an NHS HC. INTERVENTION:NHS HC invitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:HC attendance and absolute percentage changes and ORs of (1) detecting cardiovascular disease (CVD) 10-year risk >10%?and >20%, smokers, and total cholesterol (TC) >5.5?mmol/L and >7.5?mmol/L; (2) diagnosing hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF); and (3) new interventions with statins, antihypertensives, antiglycaemics and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). RESULTS:HC attendance rose from 12% to 30% between 2011/2012 and 2014/2015 (p<0.001). HC invitation increased detection of CVD risk >10% (2.0%-3.6, p<0.001) and >20% (0.1%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.392), TC >5.5?mmol/L (4.1%-7.0%, p<0.001) and >7.5?mmol/L (0.3%-0.4%?p<0.001), hypertension (0.3%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.003), and interventions with statins (0.2%-0.9%, p<0.001-0.017) and antihypertensives (0.1%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.205). There were no consistent differences in detection of smokers, NRT, or diabetes, AF or CKD. Multivariate analyses showed associations between HC invitation and detecting CVD risk >10% (OR 8.01, 95%?CI 7.34 to 8.73) and >20% (5.86, 4.83 to 7.10), TC >5.5?mmol/L (3.72, 3.57 to 3.89) and >7.5?mmol/L (2.89, 2.46 to 3.38), and diagnoses of hypertension (1.33, 1.20 to 1.47) and diabetes (1.34, 1.12 to 1.61). OR of CVD risk >10%?plus statin and >20%?plus statin, respectively, was 2.90 (2.36 to 3.57) and 2.60 (1.92 to 3.52), and for hypertension plus antihypertensive was 1.33 (1.18 to 1.50). There were no associations with AF, CKD, antiglycaemics or NRT. Detection of several risk factors varied inversely by deprivation. CONCLUSIONS:HC invitation increased detection of cardiovascular risk factors, but corresponding increases in evidence-based interventions were modest.

Project description:BackgroundBipolar disorder is a chronic and disabling psychiatric condition, characterised by recurrent episodes of mania, hypomania and depression. It places a heavy burden on sufferers and families, with high societal and healthcare costs. Many service users with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder also experience prominent psychotic symptoms, with differential diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, and relapses characterised by repeated manic psychotic episodes and grandiosity. Such presentations require specific adaptations to standard bipolar disorder interventions in order to address their psychosis, alongside mood regulation, with a particular emphasis on impulsivity, irritability, disinhibition and elation. The Balancing ACT study aims to evaluate an innovative group intervention combining Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and psychoeducation approaches (ACT/PE) with individuals experiencing bipolar disorder and/or symptoms within community psychosis services.MethodsThe Balancing ACT study is a randomised controlled trial comparing Balancing ACT groups (ACT/PE) plus routine care to routine care alone. Balancing ACT (ACT/PE) comprises ten group sessions, each lasting 2 hours, delivered weekly. The primary outcome is psychological wellbeing; secondary outcomes are mental health relapses (measured by service use averages for the 12 months pre baseline and 3 months post baseline). We will also measure mood, distress, recovery and psychological change processes. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio, after baseline assessment. Outcomes will be assessed by trained assessors blind to treatment condition at 0, 10 and 14 weeks. Recruitment began in April 2017 and is on-going until the end of October 2017.DiscussionThe Balancing ACT study will contribute to the currently limited evidence base for psychological interventions for people experiencing bipolar disorder and/or symptoms in the context of community psychosis services.Trial registrationISRCTN73327972 . Registered on 27 March 2017. Balancing ACT: evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducation and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) groups for people with bipolar disorder.

Project description:BackgroundDepressive disorders are the third leading cause of consultation in primary care, mainly in patients with chronic physical illnesses. Studies have shown the effectiveness of group psychoeducation in reducing symptoms in depressive individuals. Our primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention based on a psychoeducational program, carried out by primary care nurses, to improve the remission/response rate of depression in patients with chronic physical illness. Secondarily, to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, its impact on improving control of the physical pathology and quality of life, and intervention feasibility.Methods/designA multicenter, randomized, clinical trial, with two groups and one-year follow-up evaluation. Economic evaluation study.SubjectsWe will assess 504 patients (252 in each group) aged > 50 years assigned to 25 primary healthcare centers (PHC) from Catalonia (urban, semi-urban, and rural). Participants suffer from major depression (Beck depression inventory: BDI-II 13-28) and at least one of the following: type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and/or ischemic cardiopathy. Patients with moderate/severe suicide risk or severe mental disorders are excluded. Participants will be distributed randomly into the intervention group (IG) and control (CG).InterventionThe IG will participate in the psychoeducational intervention: 12 sessions of 90 min, once a week led by two Primary Care (PC) nurses. The sessions will consist of health education regarding chronic physical illness and depressive symptoms.Main measurementsClinical remission of depression and/or response to intervention (BDI-II).Secondary measurementsImprovement in control of chronic diseases (blood test and physical parameters), drug compliance (Morinsky-Green test and number of containers returned), quality of life (EQ-5D), medical service utilization (appointments and hospital admissions due to complications), and feasibility of the intervention (satisfaction and compliance). Evaluations will be blinded, and conducted at baseline, post-intervention, and 12 months follow-up.DiscussionResults could be informative for efforts to prevent depression in patients with a chronic physical illness.Trial registrationNCT03243799 (registration date August 9, 2017).

Project description:ObjectivesInterventions addressing the individual and environmental protective factors of adolescents are suggested to have potential for reducing adolescent substance use. While universally delivered school-based substance use prevention interventions are common, previous studies have suggested variable effectiveness by subgroups of students. An exploratory study was undertaken to examine the differential effectiveness of a universal school-based resilience intervention on adolescent substance use and protective factors according to their sociodemographic and previous substance use.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting32 Australian secondary schools.ParticipantsCohort of grade 7 students (n=3155) followed up in grade 10 (aged 15-16 years; 2014; n=2105).InterventionThree-year universal school-based intervention implemented by school staff that targeted a range of student resilience protective factors (2012-2014).MeasurementsPrimary outcomes included: tobacco (recent, number of cigarettes) and alcohol (recent, 'risk' and number of drinks) use, and secondary outcomes included: marijuana (recent) and other illicit substance (recent) use, and aggregate individual and environmental protective factor scores. Generalised and linear mixed models examined interactions between treatment and student subgroups (gender; socioeconomic disadvantage (low/high); geographic location (major city/inner regional/outer regional-remote); and previous substance use (non-user/user)) at follow-up (36 models).ResultsAnalysis of student follow-up data showed no differential intervention effect for any substance use or protective factor outcome for any subgroup, with the exception of one differential effect found by socioeconomic status for the outcome of mean number of cigarettes smoked by recent smokers (p=0.003). There was no evidence of an intervention effect within the low (mean difference (MD) -12.89, 95% CI -26.00 to 0.23) or high (MD 16.36, 95% CI -1.03 to 33.76) socioeconomic subgroups.ConclusionsNo evidence of an intervention effect on substance use and protective factors was found according to student subgroups defined by sociodemographic characteristics or previous substance use.Trial registration numberACTRN12611000606987.

Project description:ObjectiveTo use mathematical and economic models to predict the epidemiological and economic impact of vaccination with Bexsero, designed to protect against group B meningococcal disease, to help inform vaccine policy in the United Kingdom.DesignModelling study.SettingEngland.PopulationPeople aged 0-99.InterventionsIncremental impact of introductory vaccine strategies simulated with a transmission dynamic model of meningococcal infection and vaccination including potential herd effects. Model parameters included recent evidence on the vaccine characteristics, disease burden, costs of care, litigation costs, and loss of quality of life from disease, including impacts on family and network members. The health impact of vaccination was assessed through cases averted and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.Main outcome measuresCases averted and cost per QALY gained through vaccination; programmes were deemed cost effective against a willingness to pay of £20,000 (€25,420, $32,677) per QALY gained from an NHS and personal and social services perspective.ResultsIn the short term, case reduction is greatest with routine infant immunisation (26.3% of cases averted in the first five years). This strategy could be cost effective at £3 (€3.8, $4.9) a vaccine dose, given several favourable assumptions and the use of a quality of life adjustment factor. If the vaccine can disrupt meningococcal transmission more cases are prevented in the long term with an infant and adolescent combined programme (51.8% after 30 years), which could be cost effective at £4 a vaccine dose. Assuming the vaccine reduces acquisition by 30%, adolescent vaccination alone is the most favourable strategy economically, but takes more than 20 years to substantially reduce the number of cases.ConclusionsRoutine infant vaccination is the most effective short term strategy and could be cost effective with a low vaccine price. Critically, if the vaccine reduces carriage acquisition in teenagers, the combination of infant and adolescent vaccination could result in substantial long term reductions in cases and be cost effective with competitive vaccine pricing.

Project description:BackgroundMillions of young adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises experience elevated rates of poor mental health. There is a need for scalable programs that can improve the mental health of young adolescents. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a nonspecialist delivered group-based intervention (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions (EASE)) to improve young adolescents' mental health.Methods and findingsIn this single-blind, parallel, controlled trial, Syrian refugees aged 10 to 14 years in Jordan were identified through screening of psychological distress as defined by scores ≥15 on the Paediatric Symptom Scale. Participants were randomised to either EASE or enhanced usual care (EUC) involving referral to local psychosocial services (on a 1:1.6 ratio). Participants were aware of treatment allocation but assessors were blinded. Primary outcomes were scores on the Paediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC; internalising, externalising, and attentional difficulty scales) assessed at week 0, 9 weeks, and 3 months after treatment (primary outcome time point). It was hypothesised that EASE would result in greater reductions on internalising symptoms than EUC. Secondary outcomes were depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, school belongingness, and caregivers' parenting and mental health. Between June 2019 and January 2020, 1,842 young adolescent refugees were screened for eligibility on the basis of psychological distress. There were 520 adolescents (28.2%) who screened positive, of whom 471 (90.6%) agreed to enter the trial. Overall, 185 were assigned to EASE and 286 to EUC, and 169 and 254 were retained at 3 months for EASE and EUC, respectively. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that at 3 months, EASE resulted in greater reduction on the PSC-internalising scale than EUC (estimated mean difference 0.69, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.19; p = 0.007; effect size, 0.38) but there were no differences for PSC-externalising (estimated mean difference 0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.91; p = 0.49; effect size, -0.10), PSC-attentional problem (estimated mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.54; p = 0.97; effect size, -0.01) scores, or on depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, or school belongingness. Relative to EUC, caregivers in EASE had less psychological distress (estimated mean difference 1.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.19; p = 0.002) and inconsistent disciplinary parenting (mean difference 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.05; p < 0.001). Secondary analyses that (a) focused on adolescents with probable internalising disorders; (b) completed the 3-month assessment; and (c) controlled for trauma exposure did not alter the primary results. Mediation analysis indicated that for caregivers in the EASE condition, reduction in inconsistent disciplinary parenting was associated with reduced attentional (β = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) and internalising (β = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) problems in their children. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. A limitation was that EUC was not matched to EASE in terms of facilitator attention or group involvement.ConclusionsEASE led to reduced internalising problems in young refugee adolescents and was associated with reduced distress and less inconsistent disciplinary parenting in caregivers. This intervention has the potential as a scalable intervention to mitigate young adolescents' emotional difficulties in LMIC.Trial registrationProspectively registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619000341123.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets