The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT

Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT
Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT
Background Service users and carers using mental health services want more involvement in their care and the aim of this research programme was to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning in mental health services. Objectives Co-develop and co-deliver a training intervention for health professionals in community mental health teams, which aimed to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning. Develop a patient-reported outcome measure of service user involvement in care planning, design an audit tool and assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning involvement. Evaluate the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the training. Understand the barriers to and facilitators of implementing service user- and carer-involved care planning. Disseminate resources to stakeholders. Methods A systematic review, focus groups and interviews with service users/carers/health professionals informed the training and determined the priorities underpinning involvement in care planning. Data from focus groups and interviews were combined and analysed using framework analysis. The results of the systematic review, focus groups/interviews and a review of the training interventions were synthesised to develop the final training intervention. To develop and validate the patient-reported outcome measure, items were generated from focus groups and interviews, and a psychometric analysis was conducted. Patient-reported outcome measure items and a three-round consensus exercise were used to develop an audit tool, and a stated preference survey was undertaken to assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the training were evaluated using a pragmatic cluster trial with cohort and cross-sectional samples. A nested longitudinal qualitative process evaluation using multiple methods, including semistructured interviews with key informants involved locally and nationally in mental health policy, practice and research, was undertaken. A mapping exercise was used to determine current practice, and semistructured interviews were undertaken with service users and mental health professionals from both the usual-care and the intervention arms of the trial at three time points (i.e. baseline and 6 months and 12 months post intervention). Results The results from focus groups (n = 56) and interviews (n = 74) highlighted a need to deliver training to increase the quality of care planning and a training intervention was developed. We recruited 402 participants to develop the final 14-item patient-reported outcome measure and a six-item audit tool. We recruited 232 participants for the stated preference survey and found that preferences were strongest for the attribute ‘my preferences for care are included in the care plan’. The training was delivered to 304 care co-ordinators working in community mental health teams across 10 NHS trusts. The cluster trial and cross-sectional survey recruited 1286 service users and 90 carers, and the primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Training was positively evaluated. The results showed no statistically significant difference on the primary outcome (the Health Care Climate Questionnaire) (adjusted mean difference –0.064, 95% confidence interval –0.343 to 0.215; p = 0.654) or secondary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, the training intervention was associated with a net saving of –£54.00 (95% confidence interval –£193.00 to £84.00), with a net quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.014 (95% confidence interval –0.034 to 0.005). The longitudinal process evaluation recruited 54 service users, professionals and carers, finding a failure of training to become embedded in routine care. Limitations Our pragmatic study was designed to improve service user and care involvement in care planning among routine community mental health services. We intervened in 18 sites with > 300 care co-ordinators. However, our volunteer sites may not be fully representative of the wider population, and we lacked data with which to compare our participants with the eligible population. Conclusions We co-developed and co-delivered a training intervention and developed a unidimensional measure of service user and carer involvement in care planning and an audit tool. Despite a high level of satisfaction with the training, no significant effect was found; therefore, the intervention was ineffective. There was a failure of training to become embedded and normalised because of a lack of organisational readiness to accept change. Working with NHS trusts in our ‘Willing Adopters’ programme with enhanced organisational buy-in yielded some promising results. Future work Research should focus on developing and evaluating new organisational initiatives in addition to training health-care professionals to address contextual barriers to service and carer involvement in care planning, and explore co-designing and delivering new ways of enhancing service users’ and carers’ capabilities to engage in care planning. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16488358. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
2050-4322
Lovell, Karina
5d35b37c-4545-4ba4-a66c-9d94e1e9e780
Bee, Penny
76e373ee-12be-4966-8bb6-8157e1dc037d
Bower, Peter
ec553157-a170-4219-8b55-2df813846e44
Brooks, Helen
0056a0c8-f97a-4215-99e1-652291fcd6eb
Cahoon, Patrick
da2d458d-91ed-46c2-af1e-c129bd12d230
Callaghan, Patrick
cb5bb94e-19bf-47ca-bfc3-d676ac81dea8
Carter, Lesley-anne
eb2704ec-20ca-4cf4-b276-04cdda4002c1
Cree, Lindsey
bbc04c53-5ba6-4939-b377-7344fda017fa
Davies, Linda
5cb5a68e-ff0a-4519-a773-dafb313e2e70
Drake, Richard
a031e7ce-cc6d-489d-939f-2f8faad32d43
Fraser, Claire
aebecd2c-85c7-4e2f-92a6-00b11b8f1326
Gibbons, Chris
000f0dcc-beb6-401b-a48b-133011e517ef
Grundy, Andrew
e21f80b5-0667-43f3-bfb8-c4b29f7f15fb
Hinsliff-smith, Kathryn
d49c0804-7791-4409-9973-61020e09bb7d
Meade, Oonagh
4469234d-0df1-4d66-b0fd-c141a87e1f2e
Roberts, Chris
6b8da39a-79b9-478e-8170-32f40ad4ef3f
Rogers, Anne
105eeebc-1899-4850-950e-385a51738eb7
Rushton, Kelly
eb3f5279-ef7b-4ba2-9e89-8ba7a52e23ac
Sanders, Caroline
1121a9ec-e719-489a-9ffd-ae8cb6e49a78
Shields, Gemma
34afdb73-9cad-48c0-a7e1-16d3e6e044f8
Walker, Lauren
b68adbc8-08f1-447b-a26b-6be2f601cf0f
Lovell, Karina
5d35b37c-4545-4ba4-a66c-9d94e1e9e780
Bee, Penny
76e373ee-12be-4966-8bb6-8157e1dc037d
Bower, Peter
ec553157-a170-4219-8b55-2df813846e44
Brooks, Helen
0056a0c8-f97a-4215-99e1-652291fcd6eb
Cahoon, Patrick
da2d458d-91ed-46c2-af1e-c129bd12d230
Callaghan, Patrick
cb5bb94e-19bf-47ca-bfc3-d676ac81dea8
Carter, Lesley-anne
eb2704ec-20ca-4cf4-b276-04cdda4002c1
Cree, Lindsey
bbc04c53-5ba6-4939-b377-7344fda017fa
Davies, Linda
5cb5a68e-ff0a-4519-a773-dafb313e2e70
Drake, Richard
a031e7ce-cc6d-489d-939f-2f8faad32d43
Fraser, Claire
aebecd2c-85c7-4e2f-92a6-00b11b8f1326
Gibbons, Chris
000f0dcc-beb6-401b-a48b-133011e517ef
Grundy, Andrew
e21f80b5-0667-43f3-bfb8-c4b29f7f15fb
Hinsliff-smith, Kathryn
d49c0804-7791-4409-9973-61020e09bb7d
Meade, Oonagh
4469234d-0df1-4d66-b0fd-c141a87e1f2e
Roberts, Chris
6b8da39a-79b9-478e-8170-32f40ad4ef3f
Rogers, Anne
105eeebc-1899-4850-950e-385a51738eb7
Rushton, Kelly
eb3f5279-ef7b-4ba2-9e89-8ba7a52e23ac
Sanders, Caroline
1121a9ec-e719-489a-9ffd-ae8cb6e49a78
Shields, Gemma
34afdb73-9cad-48c0-a7e1-16d3e6e044f8
Walker, Lauren
b68adbc8-08f1-447b-a26b-6be2f601cf0f

Lovell, Karina, Bee, Penny, Bower, Peter, Brooks, Helen, Cahoon, Patrick, Callaghan, Patrick, Carter, Lesley-anne, Cree, Lindsey, Davies, Linda, Drake, Richard, Fraser, Claire, Gibbons, Chris, Grundy, Andrew, Hinsliff-smith, Kathryn, Meade, Oonagh, Roberts, Chris, Rogers, Anne, Rushton, Kelly, Sanders, Caroline, Shields, Gemma and Walker, Lauren (2019) Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT. Programme Grants for Applied Research, 7 (9). (doi:10.3310/pgfar07090).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background Service users and carers using mental health services want more involvement in their care and the aim of this research programme was to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning in mental health services. Objectives Co-develop and co-deliver a training intervention for health professionals in community mental health teams, which aimed to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning. Develop a patient-reported outcome measure of service user involvement in care planning, design an audit tool and assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning involvement. Evaluate the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the training. Understand the barriers to and facilitators of implementing service user- and carer-involved care planning. Disseminate resources to stakeholders. Methods A systematic review, focus groups and interviews with service users/carers/health professionals informed the training and determined the priorities underpinning involvement in care planning. Data from focus groups and interviews were combined and analysed using framework analysis. The results of the systematic review, focus groups/interviews and a review of the training interventions were synthesised to develop the final training intervention. To develop and validate the patient-reported outcome measure, items were generated from focus groups and interviews, and a psychometric analysis was conducted. Patient-reported outcome measure items and a three-round consensus exercise were used to develop an audit tool, and a stated preference survey was undertaken to assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the training were evaluated using a pragmatic cluster trial with cohort and cross-sectional samples. A nested longitudinal qualitative process evaluation using multiple methods, including semistructured interviews with key informants involved locally and nationally in mental health policy, practice and research, was undertaken. A mapping exercise was used to determine current practice, and semistructured interviews were undertaken with service users and mental health professionals from both the usual-care and the intervention arms of the trial at three time points (i.e. baseline and 6 months and 12 months post intervention). Results The results from focus groups (n = 56) and interviews (n = 74) highlighted a need to deliver training to increase the quality of care planning and a training intervention was developed. We recruited 402 participants to develop the final 14-item patient-reported outcome measure and a six-item audit tool. We recruited 232 participants for the stated preference survey and found that preferences were strongest for the attribute ‘my preferences for care are included in the care plan’. The training was delivered to 304 care co-ordinators working in community mental health teams across 10 NHS trusts. The cluster trial and cross-sectional survey recruited 1286 service users and 90 carers, and the primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Training was positively evaluated. The results showed no statistically significant difference on the primary outcome (the Health Care Climate Questionnaire) (adjusted mean difference –0.064, 95% confidence interval –0.343 to 0.215; p = 0.654) or secondary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, the training intervention was associated with a net saving of –£54.00 (95% confidence interval –£193.00 to £84.00), with a net quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.014 (95% confidence interval –0.034 to 0.005). The longitudinal process evaluation recruited 54 service users, professionals and carers, finding a failure of training to become embedded in routine care. Limitations Our pragmatic study was designed to improve service user and care involvement in care planning among routine community mental health services. We intervened in 18 sites with > 300 care co-ordinators. However, our volunteer sites may not be fully representative of the wider population, and we lacked data with which to compare our participants with the eligible population. Conclusions We co-developed and co-delivered a training intervention and developed a unidimensional measure of service user and carer involvement in care planning and an audit tool. Despite a high level of satisfaction with the training, no significant effect was found; therefore, the intervention was ineffective. There was a failure of training to become embedded and normalised because of a lack of organisational readiness to accept change. Working with NHS trusts in our ‘Willing Adopters’ programme with enhanced organisational buy-in yielded some promising results. Future work Research should focus on developing and evaluating new organisational initiatives in addition to training health-care professionals to address contextual barriers to service and carer involvement in care planning, and explore co-designing and delivering new ways of enhancing service users’ and carers’ capabilities to engage in care planning. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16488358. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Text
3030835 - Version of Record
Download (16MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 December 2018
Published date: 24 October 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 437472
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/437472
ISSN: 2050-4322
PURE UUID: 93c28020-2a5f-41e2-b692-0fba40ae1250

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 31 Jan 2020 17:30
Last modified: 30 Jun 2022 17:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Karina Lovell
Author: Penny Bee
Author: Peter Bower
Author: Helen Brooks
Author: Patrick Cahoon
Author: Patrick Callaghan
Author: Lesley-anne Carter
Author: Lindsey Cree
Author: Linda Davies
Author: Richard Drake
Author: Claire Fraser
Author: Chris Gibbons
Author: Andrew Grundy
Author: Kathryn Hinsliff-smith
Author: Oonagh Meade
Author: Chris Roberts
Author: Anne Rogers
Author: Kelly Rushton
Author: Caroline Sanders
Author: Gemma Shields
Author: Lauren Walker

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×