Search

Background: 'Engager' is an innovative 'through-the-gate' complex care intervention for male prison-leavers with common mental health problems. In parallel to the randomised-controlled trial of Engager (Trial registration number: ISRCTN11707331), a set of process evaluation analyses were undertaken. This paper reports on the depth multiple case study analysis part of the process evaluation, exploring how a sub-sample of prison-leavers engaged and responded to the intervention offer of one-to-one support during their re-integration into the community. Methods: To understand intervention delivery and what response it elicited in individuals, we used a realist-informed qualitative multiple 'case' studies approach. We scrutinised how intervention component delivery lead to outcomes by examining underlying causal pathways or 'mechanisms' that promoted or hindered progress towards personal outcomes. 'Cases' (n = 24) were prison-leavers from the intervention arm of the trial. We collected practitioner activity logs and conducted semi-structured interviews with prison-leavers and Engager/other service practitioners. We mapped data for each case against the intervention logic model and then used Bhaskar's (2016) 'DREIC' analytic process to categorise cases according to extent of intervention delivery, outcomes evidenced, and contributing factors behind engagement or disengagement and progress achieved. Results: There were variations in the dose and session focus of the intervention delivery, and how different participants responded. Participants sustaining long-term engagement and sustained change reached a state of 'crises but coping'. We found evidence that several components of the intervention were key to achieving this: trusting relationships, therapeutic work delivered well and over time; and an in-depth shared understanding of needs, concerns, and goals between the practitioner and participants. Those who disengaged were in one of the following states: 'Crises and chaos', 'Resigned acceptance', 'Honeymoon' or 'Wilful withdrawal'. Conclusions: We demonstrate that the 'implementability' of an intervention can be explained by examining the delivery of core intervention components in relation to the responses elicited in the participants. Core delivery mechanisms often had to be 'triggered' numerous times to produce sustained change. The improvements achieved, sustained, and valued by participants were not always reflected in the quantitative measures recorded in the RCT. The compatibility between the practitioner, participant and setting were continually at risk of being undermined by implementation failure as well as changing external circumstances and participants' own weaknesses. Trial registration number: ISRCTN11707331, Wales Research Ethics Committee, Registered 02-04-2016—Retrospectively registered https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11707331. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgemental rationality is infrequently referenced within discussions of Realist Evaluations. Judgemental rationality refers to researchers' capacity to assess which, potential, meanings provide the most credible explanations. In evaluation work, rationale for analysis is provided, though rarely do we see how an evaluator made judgements between competing theories, and which theories were discarded and why. We provide a worked example of the application of judgemental rationality. The Engager intervention offered support to prison leavers with common mental health problems. The data for 24, purposively sampled, participants from the intervention arm of the trial were integrated. Bhaskar's DREIC, a five-step analytical procedure, was used to transfactually theorise and interrogate the inferences made within, and across, cases. The findings demonstrated that the intervention was more effective when practitioners developed an in-depth understanding of the participant. We recommend that intervention developers look for ways to enhance therapeutic competencies and judgemental rationality in practitioner teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical Research Council guidelines recognise the need to optimise complex interventions prior to full trial through greater understanding of underlying theory and formative process evaluation, yet there are few examples. A realist approach to formative process evaluation makes a unique contribution through a focus on theory formalisation and abstraction. The success of an intervention is dependent on the extent to which it gels or jars with existing provision and can be successfully transferred to new contexts. Interventions with underlying programme theory about how they work, for whom, and under which circumstances will be better able to adapt to work with (rather than against) different services, individuals, and settings. In this methodological article, we describe and illustrate how a realist approach to formative process evaluation develops contextualised intervention theory that can underpin more adaptable and scalable interventions. We discuss challenges and benefits of this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The 'Engager' programme is a 'through-the-gate' intervention designed to support prisoners with common mental health problems as they transition from prison back into the community. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Engager intervention. Methods and analysis The study is a parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to either: (a) the Engager intervention plus standard care (intervention group) or (b) standard care alone (control group) across two investigation centres (South West and North West of England). Two hundred and eighty prisoners meeting eligibility criteria will take part. Engager is a person-centred complex intervention delivered by practitioners and aimed at addressing offenders' mental health and social care needs. It comprises one-to-one support for participants prior to release from prison and for up to 20 weeks postrelease. The primary outcome is change in psychological distress measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure at 6 months postrelease. Secondary outcomes include: assessment of subjective met/unmet need, drug and alcohol use, health-related quality of life and well-being-related quality of life measured at 3, 6 and 12 months postrelease; change in objective social domains, drug and alcohol dependence, service utilisation and perceived helpfulness of services and change in psychological constructs related to desistence at 6 and 12 months postrelease; and recidivism at 12 months postrelease. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 (ref: 15/WA/0314) and the National Offender Management Service (ref: 2015-283). Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, clinicians and service users via papers and presentations. Trial registration number ISRCTN11707331; Pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people with common mental health problems (CMHPs) are known to have reduced rates of referral to psychological therapy.Aim: To assess referral rates to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services, contact with a therapist, and clinical outcome by age.Design and Setting: Empirical research study using patient episodes of care from South West of England IAPT services.Method: By analysing 82 513 episodes of care (2010-2011), referral rates and clinical improvement were compared with both total population and estimated prevalence in each age group using IAPT data. Probable recovery of those completing treatment was calculated for each group.Results: Estimated prevalence of CMHPs peaks in 45-49-year-olds (20.59% of population). The proportions of patients identified with CMHPs being referred peaks at 20-24 years (22.95%) and reduces with increase in age thereafter to 6.00% for 70-74-year-olds. Once referred, the proportion of those attending first treatment increases with age between 20 years (57.34%) and 64 years (76.97%). In addition, the percentage of those having a clinical improvement gradually increases from the age of 18 years (12.94%) to 69 years (20.74%).Conclusion: Younger adults are more readily referred to IAPT services. However, as a proportion of those referred, probabilities of attending once, attending more than once, and clinical improvement increase with age. It is uncertain whether optimum levels of referral have been reached for young adults. It is important to establish whether changes to service configuration, treatment options, and GP behaviour can increase referrals for middle-aged and older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores why open dialogue on the subject of erotic transference and countertransference is so difficult and attempts to offer an understanding of these phenomena which might enable counsellors to work more confidently with it. It also briefly examines the author's own research on therapists' thoughts and experiences of erotic transference, seeking to differentiate between inappropriate sexual contact between clients and therapists and the experience of erotic transference in the context of therapy as a reworking of the Oedipal relationship. Case examples illustrating the experience of countertransference within the therapeutic situation and how its presence can act as a help or a hindrance are offered. The paper concludes by examining the need to reflect on the erotic transference in therapeutic work and proposes its usefulness as a therapeutic tool. Suggestions about how the erotic transference can be managed to therapeutic effect are also explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most feedback received by health services is positive. Our systematic scoping review mapped all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates healthcare change. Most included papers did not provide specific details on positive feedback characteristics., Objectives: Describe positive feedback characteristics by (1) developing heuristics for identifying positive feedback; (2) sharing annotated feedback examples; (3) describing their positive content., Methods: 200 items were selected from two contrasting databases: (1) https://careopinion.org.uk/; (2) National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test data collected by an NHS trust. Preliminary heuristics and positive feedback categories were developed from a small convenience sample, and iteratively refined., Results: Categories were identified: positive-only; mixed; narrative; factual; grateful. We propose a typology describing tone (positive-only, mixed), form (factual, narrative) and intent (grateful). Separating positive and negative elements in mixed feedback was sometimes impossible due to ambiguity. Narrative feedback often described the cumulative impact of interactions with healthcare providers, healthcare professionals, influential individuals and community organisations. Grateful feedback was targeted at individual staff or entire units, but the target was sometimes ambiguous., Conclusion: People commissioning feedback collection systems should consider mechanisms to maximise utility by limiting ambiguity. Since being enabled to provide narrative feedback can allow contributors to make contextualised statements about what worked for them and why, then there may be trade-offs to negotiate between limiting ambiguity, and encouraging rich narratives. Groups tasked with using feedback should plan the human resources needed for careful inspection, and consider providing narrative analysis training., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse., Aims: This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release., Method: The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3-5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT)., Results: In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact., Conclusions: Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.