Improving the mental health of farmers: what types of remote support are acceptable, feasible, and improve outcomes? A feasibility RCT.

Kate Lamont, Hugo C van Woerden, Emma King, Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson, Roger W Humphry, Cameron Stark, Chris Williams, Margaret Maxwell
{"title":"Improving the mental health of farmers: what types of remote support are acceptable, feasible, and improve outcomes? A feasibility RCT.","authors":"Kate Lamont, Hugo C van Woerden, Emma King, Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson, Roger W Humphry, Cameron Stark, Chris Williams, Margaret Maxwell","doi":"10.1007/s44192-023-00054-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The farming community have high rates of poor mental health, and are relatively 'hard to reach' with mental health services. The aim of this study was therefore to undertake a feasibility RCT, based on two mental health interventions. These were (1) CBT based 'Living Life to the Full for Farming Communities' (LLTTF-F; www.llttf.com ), and (2) a holistic social and emotional support service delivered by the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RSABI). The feasibility was supplemented by process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This feasibility study aimed to recruit 40 individuals from the farming community who were experiencing a common health problem defined as a score of >  = 8 on PHQ-9. A snowball approach was used to recruit interested individuals who had an association with farming. An initial telephone call screened for eligibility and obtained consent to randomisation to the two specified interventions, or to a thirdly group receiving a combination of both LLTTF-F and 'Social and emotional support'. Participants were permitted to override the randomised option if they expressed a strong preference before the interventions began.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two participants provided baseline and three-month data. All three interventions showed positive improvements on PHQ-9 scores as follows: the 'combined intervention' mean baseline score was 18.1 compared to 12.0 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 6.1). 'Social and emotional support' mean baseline score was 11.3 compared to 6.7 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 4.6). 'LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention only' mean baseline score was 11.8 compared to 4.5 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 7.3). The retention rate was 81% at three months. In a sub-group of the LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention online materials were supplemented by telephone guided support. This approach received very positive feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recruitment from the farming community required intense effort, and good engagement can then be retained for at least three months. There is evidence that the interventions used were feasible, and tentative evidence that they had a demonstrable effect on mental wellbeing, with the LLTTFF providing the largest effect on PHQ-9 scores. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN27173711, submitted 25/08/2023, confirmed 22/092023.</p>","PeriodicalId":72827,"journal":{"name":"Discover mental health","volume":"4 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10766572/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discover mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-023-00054-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The farming community have high rates of poor mental health, and are relatively 'hard to reach' with mental health services. The aim of this study was therefore to undertake a feasibility RCT, based on two mental health interventions. These were (1) CBT based 'Living Life to the Full for Farming Communities' (LLTTF-F; www.llttf.com ), and (2) a holistic social and emotional support service delivered by the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RSABI). The feasibility was supplemented by process evaluation.

Methods: This feasibility study aimed to recruit 40 individuals from the farming community who were experiencing a common health problem defined as a score of >  = 8 on PHQ-9. A snowball approach was used to recruit interested individuals who had an association with farming. An initial telephone call screened for eligibility and obtained consent to randomisation to the two specified interventions, or to a thirdly group receiving a combination of both LLTTF-F and 'Social and emotional support'. Participants were permitted to override the randomised option if they expressed a strong preference before the interventions began.

Results: Thirty-two participants provided baseline and three-month data. All three interventions showed positive improvements on PHQ-9 scores as follows: the 'combined intervention' mean baseline score was 18.1 compared to 12.0 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 6.1). 'Social and emotional support' mean baseline score was 11.3 compared to 6.7 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 4.6). 'LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention only' mean baseline score was 11.8 compared to 4.5 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 7.3). The retention rate was 81% at three months. In a sub-group of the LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention online materials were supplemented by telephone guided support. This approach received very positive feedback.

Conclusions: Recruitment from the farming community required intense effort, and good engagement can then be retained for at least three months. There is evidence that the interventions used were feasible, and tentative evidence that they had a demonstrable effect on mental wellbeing, with the LLTTFF providing the largest effect on PHQ-9 scores. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN27173711, submitted 25/08/2023, confirmed 22/092023.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改善农民的心理健康:哪些类型的远程支持可以接受、可行并能改善结果?一项可行性 RCT。
背景:农民群体的精神健康状况较差,而且相对 "难以获得 "精神健康服务。因此,本研究的目的是在两种心理健康干预措施的基础上开展一项可行性研究。这两项干预措施分别是:(1)基于 CBT 的 "农业社区的充实生活"(LLTTF-F;www.llttf.com);(2)苏格兰皇家农业慈善机构(RSABI)提供的整体社会和情感支持服务。可行性研究还辅以过程评估:这项可行性研究旨在从农业社区招募 40 名遇到常见健康问题(PHQ-9>=8 分)的人。研究采用 "滚雪球 "的方式招募与农业有关联的感兴趣者。最初的电话招募筛选了符合条件的参与者,并征得他们的同意,将他们随机分配到两个指定的干预组,或同时接受 LLTTF-F 和 "社会与情感支持 "的第三组。如果参与者在干预开始前表达了强烈的偏好,则允许他们推翻随机选项:32名参与者提供了基线和三个月的数据。所有三种干预措施都显示出对 PHQ-9 分数的积极改善,具体如下:"综合干预 "的平均基线分数为 18.1,而 3 个月随访时为 12.0(平均变化 6.1)。社会和情感支持 "平均基线分数为 11.3,而 3 个月随访时为 6.7(平均变化 4.6)。仅基于 CBT 的 LLTTF-F 干预 "的平均基线分数为 11.8,而 3 个月随访时为 4.5(平均变化为 7.3)。三个月的保留率为 81%。在 LLTTF-F CBT 干预的一个分组中,在线材料得到了电话指导支持的补充。这种方法得到了非常积极的反馈:结论:从农业社区招募人员需要付出巨大努力,而良好的参与度至少可以保持三个月。有证据表明,所采用的干预措施是可行的,并有初步证据表明,这些干预措施对心理健康产生了明显的影响,其中 LLTTFF 对 PHQ-9 分数的影响最大。试验注册号为 ISRCTN27173711,提交日期为 2023 年 8 月 25 日,确认日期为 2023 年 9 月 22 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Distribution and association of road traffic accident with depression among Indian population aged 45 years and above: nested multilevel modelling analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Unveiling the burden: prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among domestic workers in Kigali-Rwanda. Patterns and outcomes of individuals admitted at emergency units following intentional self-harm in Northern Uganda. Prevalence of substance use among a sample of patients attending an outpatient psychiatric clinic in Amman, Jordan. The role of emotion regulation strategies as the mediator between self-compassion and depression among undergraduates in Yunnan province, China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1