An online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar experiences: the IMPART multiple case study

Author:

Lobban Fiona1ORCID,Appelbe Duncan2ORCID,Appleton Victoria1ORCID,Aref-Adib Golnar3ORCID,Barraclough Johanna1ORCID,Billsborough Julie4ORCID,Fisher Naomi R1ORCID,Foster Sheena4ORCID,Gill Bethany1ORCID,Glentworth David5,Harrop Chris5ORCID,Johnson Sonia3ORCID,Jones Steven H1ORCID,Kovacs Tibor Z5ORCID,Lewis Elizabeth1ORCID,Mezes Barbara1ORCID,Morton Charlotte3ORCID,Murray Elizabeth6ORCID,O’Hanlon Puffin3ORCID,Pinfold Vanessa4ORCID,Rycroft-Malone Jo7ORCID,Siddle Ronald5ORCID,Smith Jo8ORCID,Sutton Chris J9ORCID,Viglienghi Pietro5ORCID,Walker Andrew1ORCID,Wintermeyer Catherine1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

2. Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

3. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK

4. McPin Foundation, London, UK

5. Participating NHS trust, UK

6. Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK

7. School of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

8. School of Allied Health and Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

9. Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Abstract

Background Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Reference136 articles.

1. Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa;Aranda-Jan;BMC Public Health,2014

2. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches;Murray;Am J Prev Med,2016

3. House of Commons Health Committee. Managing the Care of People with Long-Term Conditions: Second Report of Session 2014–15. London: The Stationery Office; 2014.

4. Self-management support interventions to reduce health care utilisation without compromising outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Panagioti;BMC Health Serv Res,2014

5. Internet and mobile technologies: addressing the mental health of trauma survivors in less resourced communities;Ruzek;Glob Ment Health,2017

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3