Dataset Information

Patient, family and provider views of measurement-based care in an early-psychosis intervention programme

ABSTRACT:

Background

Measurement-based care (MBC) in mental health improves patient outcomes and is a component of many national guidelines for mental healthcare delivery. Nevertheless, MBC is not routinely integrated into clinical practice. Several known reasons for the lack of integration exist but one lesser explored variable is the subjective perspectives of providers and patients about MBC. Such perspectives are critical to understand facilitators and barriers to improve the integration of MBC into routine clinical practice.

Aims

This study aimed to uncover the perspectives of various stakeholders towards MBC within a single treatment centre.

Method

Researchers conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 15), family members (n = 7), case managers (n = 8) and psychiatrists (n = 6) engaged in an early-psychosis intervention programme. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by critical realist theory.

Results

Analysis converged on several themes. These include (a) implicit negative assumptions; (b) relevance and utility to practice; (c) equity versus flexibility; and (d) shared decision-making. Providers assumed patients’ perspectives of MBC were negative. Patients’ perspectives of MBC were actually favourable, particularly if MBC was used as an instrument to engage patients in shared decision-making and communication rather than as a dogmatic and rigid clinical decision tool.

Conclusions

This qualitative study presents the views of various stakeholders towards MBC, providing an in-depth examination of the barriers and facilitators to MBC through qualitative investigation. The findings from this study should be used to address the challenges organisations have experienced in implementing MBC.

SUBMITTER: Cuperfain A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8485347 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLoneliness is an important public health problem with established adverse effects on physical and mental health. Although people with psychosis often experience high levels of loneliness, relatively little is known about the relationship between loneliness and early psychosis. Potential interventions to address loneliness might be easier to implement early in the illness when social networks and social skills may be more intact than at a later stage. We investigated the views of mental health practitioners about the context and causes of loneliness in people with early psychosis, and about potential interventions.MethodsSemi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with mental health practitioners (n = 20). Participants were purposively recruited from four early intervention services for first-episode psychosis in the UK. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsParticipants believed that the majority of service users with early psychosis experience feelings of loneliness. They often saw socially isolated and disconnected clients and believed them to be lonely, but rarely discussed loneliness explicitly in clinical interactions. A combination of symptoms, stigma and negative sense of self were believed to underpin loneliness. Participants could not identify any specific current interventions delivered by their services for tackling loneliness, but thought some routinely provided interventions, including social groups and psychological treatments, could be helpful. They favoured making a wider range of loneliness interventions available and believed that community agencies beyond mental health services should be involved to make these effective and feasible to deliver. They suggested social participation interventions without an explicit mental health focus as potentially promising and valued a co-produced approach to intervention development.ConclusionsThis study suggests that loneliness is not routinely discussed in early intervention services, and a targeted strategy for tackling it is lacking. Co-produced, individualised community approaches, and interventions that target symptoms, stigma and negative self-schemas might be beneficial in alleviating loneliness for people with early psychosis. Empirical research is needed to develop and test such interventions.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In October 2018, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration funded 21 sites throughout the USA to develop, implement and evaluate specialised care programmes for individuals at clinical high risk for developing a psychotic disorder (CHR-P). Per the funding requirements, such programmes were required to provide 'step-based care'-a model in which individuals are initially provided with low-intensity, non-psychosis-specific and more benign (ie, least side effects) interventions and only progress onto higher-intensity, psychosis-specific interventions with a greater risk of more severe side effects should they not meet a priori criteria for clinical response to such lower-intensity interventions. Here, we outline the evaluation component of the step-based care programme for individuals at CHR-P at The Ohio State University Early Psychosis Intervention Center (EPICENTER). METHODS AND ANALYSES:The EPICENTER CHR-P programme provides a step-based care model comprising psychotherapy, medication management, family support/education, peer support and vocational/educational support. All participants who opt to receive care at the EPICENTER will complete a standardised assessment battery as part of usual care. This battery will be administered on enrolment and will be re-administered at 6-month intervals throughout individuals' participation in EPICENTER clinical services. Participants will have the opportunity to allow for data from these usual care assessments to be used as part of an evaluation project for this new clinical service. The primary outcome for this evaluation project is time to remission of symptomatic and functional deficits commonly experienced by individuals at CHR-P. Participants will also have the opportunity to participate in a supplemental research project designed to further evaluate treatment outcomes and patient characteristics among individuals participating in EPICENTER clinical services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This project was approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board. Results from this project will be disseminated through publications and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03970005; Pre-results.