The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Filippo Varese, Kate Allsopp, Lesley-Anne Carter, Gemma Shields, Daniel Hind, Linda Davies, Alan Barrett, Gita Bhutani, Katherine McGuirk, Fay Huntley, Joanne Jordan, Aleix Rowlandson, May Sarsam, Hein Ten Cate, Holly Walker, Ruth Watson, Jack Wilkinson, Jenni Willbourn, Paul French
{"title":"The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.","authors":"Filippo Varese, Kate Allsopp, Lesley-Anne Carter, Gemma Shields, Daniel Hind, Linda Davies, Alan Barrett, Gita Bhutani, Katherine McGuirk, Fay Huntley, Joanne Jordan, Aleix Rowlandson, May Sarsam, Hein Ten Cate, Holly Walker, Ruth Watson, Jack Wilkinson, Jenni Willbourn, Paul French","doi":"10.3310/HGQR5133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resilience Hubs provide mental health screening, facilitation of access and direct provision of psychosocial support for health and social care keyworkers in England affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore implementation of the Hubs, including characteristics of staff using the services, support accessed, costing data and a range of stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to Hub use and implementation of staff well-being support within the context of the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed-methods evaluation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Four Resilience Hubs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Findings were integrated via mixed-method case studies, including: analyses of Hub mental health screening (<i>N</i> = 1973); follow-up questionnaire data (<i>N</i> = 299) on service use and health status of Hub clients; economic information provided by the Hubs; 63 interviews with Hub staff, wider stakeholders, Hub clients and keyworkers who did not use the Hubs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings were consistent across Hubs and workstreams. Most Hub clients were NHS staff. Under-represented groups included men, keyworkers from minority ethnic communities, care homes and emergency services staff. Clients reported comorbid mental health needs across multiple domains (anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress; alcohol use; functioning). Their health status was lower than population norms and relevant pre-pandemic data. Several factors predicted higher needs, but having pre-pandemic emotional well-being concerns was one of the most robust predictors of higher need. Sixty per cent of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires reported receiving mental health support since Hub screening, most of which was directly or indirectly due to Hub support. High levels of satisfaction were reported. As in many services, staffing was the central component of Hub cost. Hubs were predominantly staffed by senior clinicians; this staffing model was consistent with the generally severe difficulties experienced by clients and the need for systemic/team-based working. Costs associated with health and social care use for Hub clients were low, which may be due to barriers to accessing support in general. Enablers to accessing Hubs included: a clear understanding of the Hubs, how to self-refer, and managerial support. Barriers included confusion between Hubs and other support; unhelpful beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and difficulties caused by systemic issues. Some keyworkers highlighted a perceived need for further diversity and cultural competency training to improve reach to under-represented communities. Other barriers for these groups included prior negative experiences of services, structural inequalities and stigma. Some wider stakeholders had concerns around growing waiting times for Hub-provided therapy, and insufficient data on Hub usage and outcomes. Feedback was otherwise very positive.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Main limitations included lack of comparative and pre-pandemic/baseline data, small numbers from under-represented groups limiting fine-grained analysis, and participant self-selection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings highlighted the value of the Hub model of outreach, screening, support navigation and provision of direct support during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and as a potential model to respond to future crises. The research provided recommendations to improve Hub promotion, equality/diversity/inclusion access issues, management of specialist resources and collection of relevant data on Hub outcomes and activities. Broader recommendations for the primary prevention of mental health difficulties across the health and care system are made, as individual support offers should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, resolutions to systemic challenges. Research recommendations are made to conduct more robust evaluations of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Hubs, using larger data sets and comparative data.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as researchregistry6303.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132269) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 29","pages":"1-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HGQR5133","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: Resilience Hubs provide mental health screening, facilitation of access and direct provision of psychosocial support for health and social care keyworkers in England affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Aim: To explore implementation of the Hubs, including characteristics of staff using the services, support accessed, costing data and a range of stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to Hub use and implementation of staff well-being support within the context of the pandemic.

Design: Mixed-methods evaluation.

Setting: Four Resilience Hubs.

Methods: Findings were integrated via mixed-method case studies, including: analyses of Hub mental health screening (N = 1973); follow-up questionnaire data (N = 299) on service use and health status of Hub clients; economic information provided by the Hubs; 63 interviews with Hub staff, wider stakeholders, Hub clients and keyworkers who did not use the Hubs.

Results: Findings were consistent across Hubs and workstreams. Most Hub clients were NHS staff. Under-represented groups included men, keyworkers from minority ethnic communities, care homes and emergency services staff. Clients reported comorbid mental health needs across multiple domains (anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress; alcohol use; functioning). Their health status was lower than population norms and relevant pre-pandemic data. Several factors predicted higher needs, but having pre-pandemic emotional well-being concerns was one of the most robust predictors of higher need. Sixty per cent of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires reported receiving mental health support since Hub screening, most of which was directly or indirectly due to Hub support. High levels of satisfaction were reported. As in many services, staffing was the central component of Hub cost. Hubs were predominantly staffed by senior clinicians; this staffing model was consistent with the generally severe difficulties experienced by clients and the need for systemic/team-based working. Costs associated with health and social care use for Hub clients were low, which may be due to barriers to accessing support in general. Enablers to accessing Hubs included: a clear understanding of the Hubs, how to self-refer, and managerial support. Barriers included confusion between Hubs and other support; unhelpful beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and difficulties caused by systemic issues. Some keyworkers highlighted a perceived need for further diversity and cultural competency training to improve reach to under-represented communities. Other barriers for these groups included prior negative experiences of services, structural inequalities and stigma. Some wider stakeholders had concerns around growing waiting times for Hub-provided therapy, and insufficient data on Hub usage and outcomes. Feedback was otherwise very positive.

Limitations: Main limitations included lack of comparative and pre-pandemic/baseline data, small numbers from under-represented groups limiting fine-grained analysis, and participant self-selection.

Conclusions: Findings highlighted the value of the Hub model of outreach, screening, support navigation and provision of direct support during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and as a potential model to respond to future crises. The research provided recommendations to improve Hub promotion, equality/diversity/inclusion access issues, management of specialist resources and collection of relevant data on Hub outcomes and activities. Broader recommendations for the primary prevention of mental health difficulties across the health and care system are made, as individual support offers should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, resolutions to systemic challenges. Research recommendations are made to conduct more robust evaluations of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Hubs, using larger data sets and comparative data.

Study registration: This study is registered as researchregistry6303.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132269) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

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
在 COVID-19 大流行期间解决医疗和社会护理工作者心理健康问题的复原力中心方法:混合方法评估。
背景:复原力中心为英格兰受2019年冠状病毒疾病大流行影响的卫生和社会护理关键工作者提供心理健康筛查、促进获取和直接提供心理社会支持。目的:探讨中心的实施情况,包括使用服务的工作人员的特征、获取的支持、成本计算数据以及利益相关者对在大流行背景下使用中心和实施工作人员福祉支持的障碍和促进因素的看法:设计:混合方法评估:四个抗灾中心:方法:通过混合方法案例研究整合研究结果,包括:中心心理健康筛查分析(N = 1973);关于中心客户服务使用和健康状况的后续问卷数据(N = 299);中心提供的经济信息;对中心员工、更广泛的利益相关者、中心客户和未使用中心的关键工作者进行的 63 次访谈:各中心和工作流的调查结果一致。大多数中心客户是国家医疗服务系统的工作人员。代表性不足的群体包括男性、少数民族社区的关键工作者、护理院和急救服务人员。服务对象报告了多个领域(焦虑、抑郁、创伤后应激、酗酒、功能障碍)的合并心理健康需求。他们的健康状况低于人口标准和大流行前的相关数据。有几种因素可以预测出更高的需求,但在大流行前对情绪健康的担忧是预测更高的需求的最可靠因素之一。在完成后续问卷调查的参与者中,有 60% 的人表示自中心筛查以来接受了心理健康支持,其中大部分直接或间接地归功于中心的支持。据报告,参与者的满意度很高。与许多服务机构一样,人员配置是中心成本的核心组成部分。中心的工作人员主要由资深临床医生担任;这种人员配备模式与服务对象普遍面临的严重困难以及系统/团队工作的需要相一致。中心客户使用医疗和社会护理服务的相关成本较低,这可能是由于获得支持普遍存在障碍。利用中心的有利因素包括:对中心的清楚了解、如何自我转介以及管理支持。障碍包括:中心与其他支持之间的混淆;对工作角色的无益看法、不支持的管理者、消极的工作场所文化以及系统性问题造成的困难。一些关键工作人 员强调,他们认为需要进一步开展多样性和文化能力培训,以便更好地帮助代表性不足的社 区。这些群体面临的其他障碍包括以前的负面服务经历、结构性不平等和污名化。一些更广泛的利益相关者对中心提供的治疗等待时间越来越长以及中心使用情况和结果数据不足表示担忧。其他方面的反馈则非常积极:主要局限性包括缺乏比较数据和大流行前/基线数据,来自代表性不足群体的人数较少,限制了精细分析,以及参与者的自我选择:研究结果凸显了 2019 年冠状病毒疾病大流行期间外联、筛查、支持导航和提供直接支持的 Hub 模式的价值,以及作为应对未来危机的潜在模式的价值。研究提出了改进 Hub 宣传、平等/多样性/包容性准入问题、专家资源管理以及收集 Hub 成果和活动相关数据的建议。研究还为在整个医疗和护理系统中对心理健康问题进行初级预防提出了更广泛的建议,因为个人提供的支持应该是解决系统性挑战的辅助手段,而不是替代品。研究建议利用更大的数据集和比较数据,对中心的临床和成本效益进行更有力的评估:本研究的注册号为 researchregistry6303:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR132269)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第29期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A model of occupational stress to assess impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: a mixed-methods study. Exploratory study from an end-of-life research partnership network to improve access for ethnically diverse communities in one region. Early mental health intervention and supported self-care for LGBTQ+ young people in the UK: a mixed-methods study. Interpersonal counselling for adolescent depression delivered by youth mental health workers without core professional training: the ICALM feasibility RCT. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of first contact physiotherapy for musculoskeletal disorders in primary care: the FRONTIER, mixed method realist evaluation.
×
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