Dataset Information

The CORE study-An adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve psychosocial recovery for people with severe mental illness: A stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mental health policies outline the need for codesign of services and quality improvement in partnership with service users and staff (and sometimes carers), and yet, evidence of systematic implementation and the impacts on healthcare outcomes is limited.

Objective

The aim of this study was to test whether an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve recovery-orientation of services led to greater psychosocial recovery outcomes for service users.

Design

A stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial was conducted.

Setting and participants

Four Mental Health Community Support Services providers, 287 people living with severe mental illnesses, 61 carers and 120 staff were recruited across Victoria, Australia.

Main outcome measures

The 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-R) measured individual psychosocial recovery.

Results

A total of 841 observations were completed with 287 service users. The intention-to-treat analysis found RAS-R scores to be similar between the intervention (mean = 84.7, SD= 15.6) and control (mean = 86.5, SD= 15.3) phases; the adjusted estimated difference in the mean RAS-R score was -1.70 (95% confidence interval: -3.81 to 0.40; p = .11).

Discussion

This first trial of an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention for psychosocial recovery outcomes found no difference between the intervention and control arms.

Conclusions

More attention to the conditions that are required for eight essential mechanisms of change to support codesign processes and implementation is needed.

Patient and public involvement

The State consumer (Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council) and carer peak bodies (Tandem representing mental health carers) codeveloped the intervention. The adapted intervention was facilitated by coinvestigators with lived-experiences who were coauthors for the trial and process evaluation protocols, the engagement model and explanatory model of change for the trial.

SUBMITTER: Palmer VJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628597 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile effective lay-health worker models for mental health care have been demonstrated through efficacy trials, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of these models implemented in rural LMIC settings.AimTo evaluate the impact of a volunteer community-led intervention on reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms and improvement in functioning, and social participation among people living in rural Gujarat, India.MethodsStepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial was used to assess the effectiveness of delivery of psychosocial intervention across 645 villages in Mehsana district of Gujarat, India between April 2017 and August 2019. The primary outcome was an improvement in depression and/or anxiety symptoms assessed using GHQ-12 at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were improvement in (a) depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire, (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) & Self-Reporting Questionnaire-20 (SRQ-20); b) quality of life (EQ- 5D); c) functioning (WHO-DAS-12), and social participation (Social Participation Scale SPS). Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the independent effect of the intervention.ResultsOut of a total of 1191 trial participants (608- intervention & 583-control), 1014 (85%) completed 3-month follow-up. In an adjusted analysis, participants in the intervention condition showed significant recovery from symptoms of depression or anxiety (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.6; p<0.05) at the end of 3-months, with effects sustained at 8-month follow-up (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 5.9). Intervention participants had improved scores on the PHQ-9 (Adjusted mean difference (AMD) -1.8; 95%CI -3.0 to -0.6), and SRQ-20 (AMD -1.7; 95%CI -2.7 to -0.6), at 3-months and PHQ-9, GAD-7, SRQ-20, EQ-5D and WHO-DAS at 8 months follow-up.ConclusionFindings suggest that Atmiyata had a significant effect on recovery from symptoms of depression and anxiety with sustained effects at 8-month follow-up.Trial registrationTrial registration details. The trial was registered prospectively with the "Clinical Trial Registry in India" (registry number: CTRI/2017/03/008139).

Project description:BackgroundSelf-stigma is highly prevalent in serious mental illness (SMI) and is associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes. Narrative enhancement and cognitive therapy (NECT) is a group-based intervention combining psychoeducation, cognitive restructuring and story-telling exercises to reduce self-stigma and its impact on recovery-related outcomes. Despite evidence of its effectiveness on self-stigma in schizophrenia-related disorders, it is unclear whether NECT can impact social functioning.MethodsThis is a 12-centre stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial of NECT effectiveness on social functioning in SMI, compared to treatment as usual. One hundred and twenty participants diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder will be recruited across the 12 sites. The 12 centres participating to the study will be randomized into two groups: one group (group 1) receiving the intervention at the beginning of the study (T0) and one group (group 2) being a control group for the first 6?months and receiving the intervention after (T1). Outcomes will be compared in both groups at T0 and T1, and 6-month and 12-month outcomes for groups 1 and 2 will be measured without a control group at T2 (to evaluate the stability of the effects over time). Evaluations will be conducted by assessors blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is personal and social performance compared across randomization groups. Secondary outcomes include self-stigma, self-esteem, wellbeing, quality of life, illness severity, depressive symptoms and personal recovery.DiscussionNECT is a promising intervention for reducing self-stigma and improving recovery-related outcomes in SMI. If shown to be effective in this trial, it is likely that NECT will be implemented in psychiatric rehabilitation services with subsequent implications for routine clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03972735 . Trial registration date 31 May 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesFrontline insights into care delivery correlate with patients' clinical outcomes. These outcomes might be improved through near-real time identification and mitigation of staff concerns. We evaluated the effects of a prospective frontline surveillance system on patient and team outcomes.DesignProspective, stepped wedge, non-randomised, cluster controlled trial; prespecified per protocol analysis for high-fidelity intervention delivery.ParticipantsSeven interdisciplinary medical ward teams from two hospitals in the UK.InterventionProspective clinical team surveillance (PCTS): structured daily interdisciplinary briefings to capture staff concerns, with organisational facilitation and feedback.Main measuresThe primary outcome was excess length of stay (eLOS): an admission more than 24?hours above the local average for comparable patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and teamwork climates, and incident reporting. Mixed-effects models adjusted for time effects, age, comorbidity, palliation status and ward admissions. Safety and teamwork climates were measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. High-fidelity PCTS delivery comprised high engagement and high briefing frequency.ResultsImplementation fidelity was variable, both in briefing frequency (median 80% working days/month, IQR 65%-90%) and engagement (median 70 issues/ward/month, IQR 34-113). 1714/6518 (26.3%) intervention admissions had eLOS versus 1279/4927 (26.0%) control admissions, an absolute risk increase of 0.3%. PCTS increased eLOS in the adjusted intention-to-treat model (OR 1.32, 95%?CI 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Conversely, high-fidelity PCTS reduced eLOS (OR 0.79, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.94, p=0.006). High-fidelity PCTS also increased total, high-yield and non-nurse incident reports (incidence rate ratios 1.28-1.79, all p<0.002). Sustained PCTS significantly improved safety and teamwork climates over time.ConclusionsThis study highlighted the potential benefits and pitfalls of ward-level interdisciplinary interventions. While these interventions can improve care delivery in complex, fluid environments, the manner of their implementation is paramount. Suboptimal implementation may have an unexpectedly negative impact on performance.Trial registration numberISRCTN 34806867 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34806867).

Project description:BackgroundStepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.MethodsComprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis.ResultsThe 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete.ConclusionWhile the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.