• Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers

      Small, Nicola; orcid: 0000-0002-7879-7967; email: nicola.small@manchester.ac.uk; Ong, Bie Nio; orcid: 0000-0001-8138-8139; Lewis, Annmarie; Allen, Dawn; Bagshaw, Nigel; Nahar, Papreen; orcid: 0000-0002-5817-8093; Sanders, Caroline; orcid: 0000-0002-0539-928X; Hodgson, Damian; Dehghan, Azad; Sharp, Charlotte; et al. (BioMed Central, 2021-11-27)
      Abstract: Background: The way we collect and use patient experience data is vital to optimise the quality and safety of health services. Yet, some patients and carers do not give feedback because of the limited ways data is collected, analysed and presented. In this study, we worked together with researchers, staff, patient and carer participants, and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) contributors, to co-design new tools for the collection and use of patient experience data in multiple health settings. This paper outlines how the range of PPIE and research activities enabled the co-design of new tools to collect patient experience data. Methods: Eight public contributors represented a range of relevant patient and carer experiences in specialist services with varied levels of PPIE experience, and eleven members of Patient and Participation Groups (PPGs) from two general practices formed our PPIE group at the start of the study. Slide sets were used to trigger co-design discussions with staff, patient and carer research participants, and PPIE contributors. Feedback from PPIE contributors alongside verbatim quotes from staff, patient and carer research participants is presented in relation to the themes from the research data. Results: PPIE insights from four themes: capturing experience data; adopting digital or non-digital tools; ensuring privacy and confidentiality; and co-design of a suite of new tools with guidance, informed joint decisions on the shaping of the tools and how these were implemented. Our PPIE contributors took different roles during co-design and testing of the new tools, which supported co-production of the study. Conclusions: Our experiences of developing multiple components of PPIE work for this complex study demonstrates the importance of tailoring PPIE to suit different settings, and to maximise individual strengths and capacity. Our study shows the value of bringing diverse experiences together, putting patients and carers at the heart of improving NHS services, and a shared approach to managing involvement in co-design, with the effects shown through the research process, outcomes and the partnership. We reflect on how we worked together to create a supportive environment when unforeseen challenges emerged (such as, sudden bereavement).
    • Effectiveness of collaborative care in reducing suicidal ideation: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

      Grigoroglou, Christos; email: christos.grigoroglou@manchester.ac.uk; van der Feltz-Cornelis, Christina; Hodkinson, Alexander; Coventry, Peter A; Zghebi, Salwa S; Kontopantelis, Evangelos; Bower, Peter; Lovell, Karina; Gilbody, Simon; Waheed, Waquas; et al. (2021-04-21)
      To assess whether CC is more effective at reducing suicidal ideation in people with depression compared with usual care, and whether study and patient factors moderate treatment effects. We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL from inception to March 2020 for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of CC with usual care in depressed adults, and reported changes in suicidal ideation at 4 to 6 months post-randomisation. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering of participants within trials and heterogeneity across trials. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020201747. We extracted data from 28 RCTs (11,165 patients) of 83 eligible studies. We observed a small significant clinical improvement of CC on suicidal ideation, compared with usual care (SMD, -0.11 [95%CI, -0.15 to -0.08]; I , 0·47% [95%CI 0.04% to 4.90%]). CC interventions with a recognised psychological treatment were associated with small reductions in suicidal ideation (SMD, -0.15 [95%CI -0.19 to -0.11]). CC was more effective for reducing suicidal ideation among patients aged over 65 years (SMD, - 0.18 [95%CI -0.25 to -0.11]). Primary care based CC with an embedded psychological intervention is the most effective CC framework for reducing suicidal ideation and older patients may benefit the most. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.]
    • Enhancing the Behaviour Change Wheel with synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making: a case example using the 'Enhancing the Quality of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Telephone' (EQUITy) research programme.

      Faija, Cintia L; Gellatly, Judith; orcid: 0000-0002-5134-5581; email: Judith.l.gellatly@manchester.ac.uk; Barkham, Michael; Lovell, Karina; Rushton, Kelly; Welsh, Charlotte; Brooks, Helen; Ardern, Kerry; Bee, Penny; Armitage, Christopher J (2021-05-14)
      Using frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop behaviour change interventions can be challenging because judgement is needed at various points in the process and it is not always clear how uncertainties can be resolved. We propose a transparent and systematic three-phase process to transition from a research evidence base to a behaviour change intervention. The three phases entail evidence synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making. We present the systematic development of an intervention to enhance the quality of psychological treatment delivered by telephone, as a worked example of this process. In phase 1 (evidence synthesis), we propose that the capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) model of behaviour change (COM-B) can be used to support the synthesis of a varied corpus of empirical evidence and to identify domains to be included in a proposed behaviour change intervention. In phase 2 (stakeholder involvement), we propose that formal consensus procedures (e.g. the RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology) can be used to facilitate discussions of proposed domains with stakeholder groups. In phase 3 (decision-making), we propose that behavioural scientists identify (with public/patient input) intervention functions and behaviour change techniques using the acceptability, practicability, effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, affordability, safety/side-effects and equity (APEASE) criteria. The COM-B model was a useful tool that allowed a multidisciplinary research team, many of whom had no prior knowledge of behavioural science, to synthesise effectively a varied corpus of evidence (phase 1: evidence synthesis). The RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology provided a transparent means of involving stakeholders (patients, practitioners and key informants in the present example), a structured way in which they could identify which of 93 domains identified in phase 1 were essential for inclusion in the intervention (phase 2: stakeholder involvement). Phase 3 (decision-making) was able to draw on existing Behaviour Change Wheel resources to revisit phases 1 and 2 and facilitate agreement among behavioural scientists on the final intervention modules. Behaviour changes were required at service, practitioner, patient and community levels. Frameworks offer a foundation for intervention development but require additional elucidation at each stage of the process. The decisions adopted in this study are designed to provide an example on how to resolve challenges while designing a behaviour change intervention. We propose a three-phase process, which represents a transparent and systematic framework for developing behaviour change interventions in any setting.
    • Enhancing the Behaviour Change Wheel with synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making: a case example using the 'Enhancing the Quality of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Telephone' (EQUITy) research programme.

      Faija, Cintia L; Gellatly, Judith; orcid: 0000-0002-5134-5581; email: Judith.l.gellatly@manchester.ac.uk; Barkham, Michael; Lovell, Karina; Rushton, Kelly; Welsh, Charlotte; Brooks, Helen; Ardern, Kerry; Bee, Penny; Armitage, Christopher J (2021-05-14)
      <h4>Background</h4>Using frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop behaviour change interventions can be challenging because judgement is needed at various points in the process and it is not always clear how uncertainties can be resolved. We propose a transparent and systematic three-phase process to transition from a research evidence base to a behaviour change intervention. The three phases entail evidence synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making. We present the systematic development of an intervention to enhance the quality of psychological treatment delivered by telephone, as a worked example of this process.<h4>Method</h4>In phase 1 (evidence synthesis), we propose that the capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) model of behaviour change (COM-B) can be used to support the synthesis of a varied corpus of empirical evidence and to identify domains to be included in a proposed behaviour change intervention. In phase 2 (stakeholder involvement), we propose that formal consensus procedures (e.g. the RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology) can be used to facilitate discussions of proposed domains with stakeholder groups. In phase 3 (decision-making), we propose that behavioural scientists identify (with public/patient input) intervention functions and behaviour change techniques using the acceptability, practicability, effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, affordability, safety/side-effects and equity (APEASE) criteria.<h4>Results</h4>The COM-B model was a useful tool that allowed a multidisciplinary research team, many of whom had no prior knowledge of behavioural science, to synthesise effectively a varied corpus of evidence (phase 1: evidence synthesis). The RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology provided a transparent means of involving stakeholders (patients, practitioners and key informants in the present example), a structured way in which they could identify which of 93 domains identified in phase 1 were essential for inclusion in the intervention (phase 2: stakeholder involvement). Phase 3 (decision-making) was able to draw on existing Behaviour Change Wheel resources to revisit phases 1 and 2 and facilitate agreement among behavioural scientists on the final intervention modules. Behaviour changes were required at service, practitioner, patient and community levels.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Frameworks offer a foundation for intervention development but require additional elucidation at each stage of the process. The decisions adopted in this study are designed to provide an example on how to resolve challenges while designing a behaviour change intervention. We propose a three-phase process, which represents a transparent and systematic framework for developing behaviour change interventions in any setting.
    • Enhancing the Behaviour Change Wheel with synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making: a case example using the ‘Enhancing the Quality of Psychological Interventions Delivered by Telephone’ (EQUITy) research programme

      Faija, Cintia L.; Gellatly, Judith; orcid: 0000-0002-5134-5581; email: Judith.l.gellatly@manchester.ac.uk; Barkham, Michael; Lovell, Karina; Rushton, Kelly; Welsh, Charlotte; Brooks, Helen; Ardern, Kerry; Bee, Penny; Armitage, Christopher J. (BioMed Central, 2021-05-14)
      Abstract: Background: Using frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop behaviour change interventions can be challenging because judgement is needed at various points in the process and it is not always clear how uncertainties can be resolved. We propose a transparent and systematic three-phase process to transition from a research evidence base to a behaviour change intervention. The three phases entail evidence synthesis, stakeholder involvement and decision-making. We present the systematic development of an intervention to enhance the quality of psychological treatment delivered by telephone, as a worked example of this process. Method: In phase 1 (evidence synthesis), we propose that the capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) model of behaviour change (COM-B) can be used to support the synthesis of a varied corpus of empirical evidence and to identify domains to be included in a proposed behaviour change intervention. In phase 2 (stakeholder involvement), we propose that formal consensus procedures (e.g. the RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology) can be used to facilitate discussions of proposed domains with stakeholder groups. In phase 3 (decision-making), we propose that behavioural scientists identify (with public/patient input) intervention functions and behaviour change techniques using the acceptability, practicability, effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, affordability, safety/side-effects and equity (APEASE) criteria. Results: The COM-B model was a useful tool that allowed a multidisciplinary research team, many of whom had no prior knowledge of behavioural science, to synthesise effectively a varied corpus of evidence (phase 1: evidence synthesis). The RAND Health/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology provided a transparent means of involving stakeholders (patients, practitioners and key informants in the present example), a structured way in which they could identify which of 93 domains identified in phase 1 were essential for inclusion in the intervention (phase 2: stakeholder involvement). Phase 3 (decision-making) was able to draw on existing Behaviour Change Wheel resources to revisit phases 1 and 2 and facilitate agreement among behavioural scientists on the final intervention modules. Behaviour changes were required at service, practitioner, patient and community levels. Conclusion: Frameworks offer a foundation for intervention development but require additional elucidation at each stage of the process. The decisions adopted in this study are designed to provide an example on how to resolve challenges while designing a behaviour change intervention. We propose a three-phase process, which represents a transparent and systematic framework for developing behaviour change interventions in any setting.
    • Improving mental health literacy among young people aged 11-15 years in Java, Indonesia: the co-development of a culturally-appropriate, user-centred resource (The IMPeTUs Intervention).

      Brooks, Helen; orcid: 0000-0002-2157-0200; email: helen.brooks@manchester.ac.uk; Syarif, Armaji Kamaludi; Pedley, Rebecca; Irmansyah, Irman; Prawira, Benny; Lovell, Karina; Opitasari, Cicih; Ardisasmita, Adam; Tanjung, Ira Savitri; Renwick, Laoise; et al. (2021-10-07)
      <h4>Background</h4>Many mental health problems emerge in late childhood and contribute significantly to the global burden of disease. Adverse outcomes can extend into adulthood if left untreated. This impact is exacerbated in low- and middle-income countries where significant treatment gaps persist. Improving mental health literacy may offer an effective strategy for early intervention but remains underexplored in these contexts.<h4>Methods</h4>An intervention was co-developed with children and young people (CYP) by undertaking a needs analysis combined with stakeholder consensus activities. A systematic review of mental health literacy interventions in South-East Asia was undertaken in addition to semi-structured interviews with 43 children and young people (19 with and 24 without experience of anxiety and depression), 19 parents of children with experience of mental health problems and 25 education and health professionals. A focus group was also held with 8 key stakeholders immersed nationally in policy and practice. Interview schedules explored participants' experiences of mental health, unmet needs and priorities for intervention. Data were synthesised and presented at a 3-day co-production workshop. Attendees included 13 CYP, 6 parents/guardians, 2 teachers, 8 health professionals, 2 academics and 3 game designers. Consensus exercises were utilised to identify the preferred format, content and delivery of the intervention. A smaller group of patient and public involvement contributors worked with designers to further iterate the intervention.<h4>Results</h4>An immersive storyline digital application was co-developed for young people aged 11-15 with the primary aim of improving mental health literacy and self-management. The intervention comprises two chapters; one depression focussed, and the other anxiety focussed. The storyline format is interspersed with interactive games and exercises to promote engagement and encourage self-management. CYP also take part in group sessions delivered by trained facilitators before and after intervention use to discuss outcomes of and issues raised during the game.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The IMPeTUs intervention has been co-designed for CYP aged 11-15 to improve mental health literacy and enhance self-management abilities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Indonesian digital intervention to improve mental health literacy and self-management for this population. Implementation, acceptability, and impact are currently being explored in a multi-site case study evaluation.
    • Improving mental health literacy among young people aged 11–15 years in Java, Indonesia: the co-development of a culturally-appropriate, user-centred resource (The IMPeTUs Intervention)

      Brooks, Helen; orcid: 0000-0002-2157-0200; email: helen.brooks@manchester.ac.uk; Syarif, Armaji Kamaludi; Pedley, Rebecca; Irmansyah, Irman; Prawira, Benny; Lovell, Karina; Opitasari, Cicih; Ardisasmita, Adam; Tanjung, Ira Savitri; Renwick, Laoise; et al. (BioMed Central, 2021-10-07)
      Abstract: Background: Many mental health problems emerge in late childhood and contribute significantly to the global burden of disease. Adverse outcomes can extend into adulthood if left untreated. This impact is exacerbated in low- and middle-income countries where significant treatment gaps persist. Improving mental health literacy may offer an effective strategy for early intervention but remains underexplored in these contexts. Methods: An intervention was co-developed with children and young people (CYP) by undertaking a needs analysis combined with stakeholder consensus activities. A systematic review of mental health literacy interventions in South-East Asia was undertaken in addition to semi-structured interviews with 43 children and young people (19 with and 24 without experience of anxiety and depression), 19 parents of children with experience of mental health problems and 25 education and health professionals. A focus group was also held with 8 key stakeholders immersed nationally in policy and practice. Interview schedules explored participants’ experiences of mental health, unmet needs and priorities for intervention. Data were synthesised and presented at a 3-day co-production workshop. Attendees included 13 CYP, 6 parents/guardians, 2 teachers, 8 health professionals, 2 academics and 3 game designers. Consensus exercises were utilised to identify the preferred format, content and delivery of the intervention. A smaller group of patient and public involvement contributors worked with designers to further iterate the intervention. Results: An immersive storyline digital application was co-developed for young people aged 11–15 with the primary aim of improving mental health literacy and self-management. The intervention comprises two chapters; one depression focussed, and the other anxiety focussed. The storyline format is interspersed with interactive games and exercises to promote engagement and encourage self-management. CYP also take part in group sessions delivered by trained facilitators before and after intervention use to discuss outcomes of and issues raised during the game. Conclusion: The IMPeTUs intervention has been co-designed for CYP aged 11–15 to improve mental health literacy and enhance self-management abilities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Indonesian digital intervention to improve mental health literacy and self-management for this population. Implementation, acceptability, and impact are currently being explored in a multi-site case study evaluation.
    • What influences practitioners’ readiness to deliver psychological interventions by telephone? A qualitative study of behaviour change using the Theoretical Domains Framework

      Faija, Cintia L.; orcid: 0000-0002-6497-9196; email: Cintia.faija@manchester.ac.uk; Connell, Janice; Welsh, Charlotte; Ardern, Kerry; Hopkin, Elinor; Gellatly, Judith; Rushton, Kelly; Fraser, Claire; Irvine, Annie; Armitage, Christopher J.; et al. (BioMed Central, 2020-07-16)
      Abstract: Background: Contemporary health policy is shifting towards remotely delivered care. A growing need to provide effective and accessible services, with maximal population reach has stimulated demand for flexible and efficient service models. The implementation of evidence-based practice has been slow, leaving many services ill equipped to respond to requests for non-face-to-face delivery. To address this translation gap, and provide empirically derived evidence to support large-scale practice change, our study aimed to explore practitioners’ perspectives of the factors that enhance the delivery of a NICE-recommended psychological intervention, i.e. guided self-help by telephone (GSH-T), in routine care. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to analyse our data, identify essential behaviour change processes and encourage the successful implementation of remote working in clinical practice. Method: Thirty-four psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) from the UK NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services were interviewed. Data were first analysed inductively, with codes cross-matched deductively to the TDF. Results: Analysis identified barriers to the delivery, engagement and implementation of GSH-T, within eight domains from the TDF: (i) Deficits in practitioner knowledge, (ii) Sub-optimal practitioner telephone skills, (iii) Practitioners’ lack of beliefs in telephone capabilities and self-confidence, (iv) Practitioners’ negative beliefs about consequences, (v) Negative emotions, (vi) Professional role expectations (vii) Negative social influences, and (viii) Challenges in the environmental context and resources. A degree of interdependence was observed between the TDF domains, such that improvements in one domain were often reported to confer secondary advantages in another. Conclusions: Multiple TDF domains emerge as relevant to improve delivery of GSH-T; and these domains are theoretically and practically interlinked. A multicomponent approach is recommended to facilitate the shift from in-person to telephone-based service delivery models, and prompt behaviour change at practitioner, patient and service levels. At a minimum, the development of practitioners’ telephone skills, an increase in clients’ awareness of telephone-based treatment, dilution of negative preconceptions about telephone treatment, and robust service level guidance and standards for implementation are required. This is the first study that provides clear direction on how to improve telephone delivery and optimise implementation, aligning with current mental health policy and service improvement.