Kathryn Greenwood, Christopher Iain Jones, Nahel Yaziji, Andy Healey, Carl May, Stephen Bremner, Richard Hooper, Shanaya Rathod, Peter Phiri, Richard de Visser, Tanya Mackay, Gergely Bartl, Iga Abramowicz, Jenny Gu, Rebecca Webb, Sunil Nandha, Belinda Lennox, Louise Johns, Paul French, Jo Hodgekins, Heather Law, James Plaistow, Rose Thompson, David Fowler, Philippa Garety, Anastacia O'Donnell, Michelle Painter, Rebecca Jarvis, Stuart Clark, Emmanuelle Peters
Background: Early Intervention in Psychosis services improves outcomes for young people with psychosis, but 25% disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health.
Objectives: To refine a toolkit and training and evaluate effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of the Early Youth Engagement-2 intervention to reduce disengagement.
Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluation.
Randomisation: Randomisation at team level stratified by site.
Masking: Research assistants, outcome assessors and statisticians were masked to treatment allocation for the primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants and teams administering the interventions were unmasked.
Setting: Twenty Early Intervention in Psychosis teams in five sites across England.
Participants: A total of 1027 young people (14-35 years) with first-episode psychosis (F20-29, 31; ICD-10); 20-282 Early Intervention in Psychosis staff.
Intervention: Team-based motivational engagement (Early Youth Engagement-2) intervention, delivered by Early Intervention in Psychosis clinicians alongside standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, supported by the implementation toolkit (training, website and booklet series).
Comparison: Standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines approved interventions.
Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - time to disengagement over 26 months (days from date of allocation to care co-ordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with service, or lack of response to contact for consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes - mental health, recovery, quality of life, service use, at 6 and 12 months. Economic outcomes - National Health Service mental healthcare costs, wider societal care costs, clinical and social outcomes over 12 months; cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation outcomes - fidelity to the Early Youth Engagement-2 model, implementation process scores, therapeutic alliance, qualitative outcomes.
Results: Disengagement was 16% across both arms. The multivariable Cox regression on 1005 participants estimated an adjusted hazard ratio for Early Youth Engagement-2 + standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis (n = 652) versus standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis service alone (n = 375) of 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.49; p = 0.713). There were no observed differences between arms for any secondary outcomes. The health economic evaluation indicated lower mean mental healthcare costs of -£788 (95% CI -£3571 to £1994) and marginally improved mental health states for intervention participants. Early Youth Engagement-2
背景:精神病服务的早期干预改善了年轻精神病患者的预后,但25%的人在前12个月内退出治疗,这对他们的精神健康造成了损失。目标:完善工具包和培训,并评估青少年早期参与-2干预的有效性、实施和成本效益,以减少脱离参与。设计:具有经济性和工艺评价的聚类随机对照试验。随机化:按地点分层的团队水平随机化。掩蔽:研究助理、结果评估员和统计学家对主要脱离接触和成本效益结果的治疗分配进行掩蔽。参与者和管理干预的团队都被揭开了面具。背景:20个精神病早期干预小组分布在英格兰的5个地点。参与者:共有1027名首发精神病的年轻人(14-35岁)(f20 - 29,31; ICD-10);20-282精神病早期干预工作人员。干预:以团队为基础的激励参与(早期青年参与-2)干预,由精神病早期干预临床医生提供,同时提供标准化的精神病早期干预,并得到实施工具包(培训,网站和小册子系列)的支持。比较:精神病的标准化早期干预,包括国家健康和护理卓越研究所指南批准的干预措施。主要结果指标:主要结果- 26个月内脱离接触的时间(从分配到护理协调员之日起至拒绝参与服务或连续3个月期间对联系缺乏回应后最后一次联系的天数)。次要结果——6个月和12个月时的心理健康、康复、生活质量、服务使用情况。经济成果——国民保健服务精神保健费用、更广泛的社会护理费用、12个月内的临床和社会结果;成本效益。过程评估结果-对早期青少年参与-2模型的忠实度,实施过程得分,治疗联盟,定性结果。结果:双臂的脱离率为16%。对1005名参与者的多变量Cox回归估计,早期青少年参与-2 +标准化精神病早期干预(n = 652)与单独的标准化精神病早期干预(n = 375)的调整风险比为1.07(95%置信区间0.76至1.49;p = 0.713)。没有观察到两组之间在任何次要结果上的差异。健康经济评估表明,干预参与者的平均心理保健费用降低了- 788英镑(95% CI - 3571英镑至1994英镑),心理健康状况略有改善。早期青年参与-2参与者每年在教育和培训上花费30多天(95% CI 1.52至53.68;干预的积极结果概率:99%),但这些结果必须非常谨慎地看待,因为只有22%的样本提供了数据。流程评估显示了不同的实现保真度和适应COVID-19广泛破坏的持续压力。对治疗联盟没有影响,最可能的积极改变机制是通过心理教育。局限性:脱离接触低于预期,后续工作损失大,COVID-19对保真度、实施和结果的影响。结论:在主要的临床有效性分析中,95%的置信限排除了早期青少年参与-2干预的脱离风险降低24%以上的可能性。在一项成本效益分析中,对早期青少年参与-2干预(降低成本,略微改善心理健康状况)占主导地位的估计有所下降。未来的工作:传播小册子和网站资源,并将该模型的改编版本作为独立工具,用于精神疾病护理的良好常规早期干预。研究注册:本研究注册号为ISRCTN 51629746。资助:该奖项由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目(NIHR奖励编号:16/31/87)资助,全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷,第33号有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
{"title":"Team-based motivational engagement intervention in young people with first-episode psychosis: the EYE-2 cluster RCT with economic and process evaluation.","authors":"Kathryn Greenwood, Christopher Iain Jones, Nahel Yaziji, Andy Healey, Carl May, Stephen Bremner, Richard Hooper, Shanaya Rathod, Peter Phiri, Richard de Visser, Tanya Mackay, Gergely Bartl, Iga Abramowicz, Jenny Gu, Rebecca Webb, Sunil Nandha, Belinda Lennox, Louise Johns, Paul French, Jo Hodgekins, Heather Law, James Plaistow, Rose Thompson, David Fowler, Philippa Garety, Anastacia O'Donnell, Michelle Painter, Rebecca Jarvis, Stuart Clark, Emmanuelle Peters","doi":"10.3310/WDWG4102","DOIUrl":"10.3310/WDWG4102","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early Intervention in Psychosis services improves outcomes for young people with psychosis, but 25% disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To refine a toolkit and training and evaluate effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of the Early Youth Engagement-2 intervention to reduce disengagement.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Randomisation: </strong>Randomisation at team level stratified by site.</p><p><strong>Masking: </strong>Research assistants, outcome assessors and statisticians were masked to treatment allocation for the primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants and teams administering the interventions were unmasked.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Twenty Early Intervention in Psychosis teams in five sites across England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 1027 young people (14-35 years) with first-episode psychosis (F20-29, 31; ICD-10); 20-282 Early Intervention in Psychosis staff.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Team-based motivational engagement (Early Youth Engagement-2) intervention, delivered by Early Intervention in Psychosis clinicians alongside standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, supported by the implementation toolkit (training, website and booklet series).</p><p><strong>Comparison: </strong>Standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines approved interventions.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcome - time to disengagement over 26 months (days from date of allocation to care co-ordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with service, or lack of response to contact for consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes - mental health, recovery, quality of life, service use, at 6 and 12 months. Economic outcomes - National Health Service mental healthcare costs, wider societal care costs, clinical and social outcomes over 12 months; cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation outcomes - fidelity to the Early Youth Engagement-2 model, implementation process scores, therapeutic alliance, qualitative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Disengagement was 16% across both arms. The multivariable Cox regression on 1005 participants estimated an adjusted hazard ratio for Early Youth Engagement-2 + standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis (<i>n</i> = 652) versus standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis service alone (<i>n</i> = 375) of 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.49; <i>p</i> = 0.713). There were no observed differences between arms for any secondary outcomes. The health economic evaluation indicated lower mean mental healthcare costs of -£788 (95% CI -£3571 to £1994) and marginally improved mental health states for intervention participants. Early Youth Engagement-2","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 33","pages":"1-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145067253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Susan Ayers, Rose Meades, Andrea Sinesi, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Catherine Best, Julie Jomeen, James Walker, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anxiety is a common mental illness that can occur during and after pregnancy, which is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Despite this, there is no consensus on the best method of assessing anxiety.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The methods of assessing perinatal anxiety (MAP) study aimed to identify the most acceptable, effective and feasible method for assessing anxiety in pregnancy and after birth.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>The MAP study had four work packages: a qualitative and cognitive interview study (work package 1); a prospective longitudinal cohort study of women during pregnancy (early, mid- and late pregnancy) and post partum, with nested diagnostic interviews (work package 2) and implementation case studies (work package 3). Secondary analysis of cohort data was commissioned as an add-on project to examine the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on perinatal anxiety (work package 4). The MAP study evaluated four assessment measures based on clinical criteria and research evidence: the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, 2-item, or 7-item version scale, Whooley questions, Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version scale.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Qualitative and cognitive interviews (work package 1) were conducted with 41 pregnant and postpartum women, recruited through patient and public involvement representative organisations and social media. The MAP cohort (work package 2) included 2243 women recruited through 12 National Health Service Trusts in England and 5 National Health Service Boards in Scotland. Diagnostic interviews were conducted with a consecutive subsample of 403 participants. Implementation case studies (work package 3) were conducted with two National Health Service sites in England and one in Scotland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was acceptable to women and was viewed positively, although this was qualified by the extent to which the process was informed and personalised. Results from cognitive interviews found that all measures were acceptable and easy to use. Diagnostic accuracy was greatest for the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. Increased anxiety on all measures was associated with greater difficulties with daily living, poorer quality of life and participants wanting treatment. Early pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) was the optimal time for identifying participants with anxiety disorders who wanted treatment. Two measures met criteria for implementation: the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was preferred by stakeholders (41 women and 55 health professionals), so it was implemented. Acceptability to health professionals (
{"title":"Identifying acceptable and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety: the MAP study.","authors":"Susan Ayers, Rose Meades, Andrea Sinesi, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Catherine Best, Julie Jomeen, James Walker, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice","doi":"10.3310/RRHD1124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/RRHD1124","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anxiety is a common mental illness that can occur during and after pregnancy, which is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Despite this, there is no consensus on the best method of assessing anxiety.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The methods of assessing perinatal anxiety (MAP) study aimed to identify the most acceptable, effective and feasible method for assessing anxiety in pregnancy and after birth.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>The MAP study had four work packages: a qualitative and cognitive interview study (work package 1); a prospective longitudinal cohort study of women during pregnancy (early, mid- and late pregnancy) and post partum, with nested diagnostic interviews (work package 2) and implementation case studies (work package 3). Secondary analysis of cohort data was commissioned as an add-on project to examine the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on perinatal anxiety (work package 4). The MAP study evaluated four assessment measures based on clinical criteria and research evidence: the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, 2-item, or 7-item version scale, Whooley questions, Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version scale.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Qualitative and cognitive interviews (work package 1) were conducted with 41 pregnant and postpartum women, recruited through patient and public involvement representative organisations and social media. The MAP cohort (work package 2) included 2243 women recruited through 12 National Health Service Trusts in England and 5 National Health Service Boards in Scotland. Diagnostic interviews were conducted with a consecutive subsample of 403 participants. Implementation case studies (work package 3) were conducted with two National Health Service sites in England and one in Scotland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was acceptable to women and was viewed positively, although this was qualified by the extent to which the process was informed and personalised. Results from cognitive interviews found that all measures were acceptable and easy to use. Diagnostic accuracy was greatest for the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. Increased anxiety on all measures was associated with greater difficulties with daily living, poorer quality of life and participants wanting treatment. Early pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) was the optimal time for identifying participants with anxiety disorders who wanted treatment. Two measures met criteria for implementation: the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was preferred by stakeholders (41 women and 55 health professionals), so it was implemented. Acceptability to health professionals (","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 32","pages":"1-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145071328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniele Carrieri, Alison Pearson, Anna Melvin, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Mark Pearson, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick
<p><strong>Background: </strong>The key role of medical workforce well-being in the delivery of excellent and equitable care is recognised internationally. However, doctors are known to experience significant mental ill health and erosion of their well-being due to challenging demands and pressurised work environments. Existing workplace support strategies often have limited effect and do not consider the multiple factors contributing to poor well-being in doctors (e.g. individual, organisational and social), nor whether interventions have been implemented effectively.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' workplace well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.</p><p><strong>Design and method: </strong>Three inter-related sequential phases of research activity: Phase 1: a typology of interventions and mapping tool to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being based on iterative cycles of analysis of published and in-practice interventions and informed by relevant theories and frameworks and engagement with stakeholders. Phase 2: realist evaluation consistent with Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality standards of existing strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being in eight purposively selected acute National Health Service trusts in England based on 124 interviews with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders. Phase 3: codeveloped implementation guidance for all National Health Service trusts to optimise their strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being - drawing on phases 1 and 2, and engagement with stakeholders in three online national workshops.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1: although many sources did not clarify their underlying assumptions about causal pathways or the theoretical basis of interventions, we were able to develop a typology and mapping tool which can be used to conceptualise interventions by type (e.g. whether they are designed to be largely preventative or 'curative'). Phase 2: key findings from our realist interviews were that: (1) solutions needed to align with problems to support doctor's well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) involving doctors in creating solutions was important to address their well-being problems; (3) doctors often do not know what well-being support is available and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support. Phase 3: our 'Workplace well-being MythBuster's guide' provides constructive evidence-based implementation guidance, while authentically representing the predominantly negative experiences reported in phase 2.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Although we sampled for diversity, the eight trusts we worked with may not be representative of all trusts in England.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Misaligned
{"title":"Optimising the delivery and impacts of interventions to improve hospital doctors' workplace wellbeing in the NHS: The Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation study.","authors":"Daniele Carrieri, Alison Pearson, Anna Melvin, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Mark Pearson, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick","doi":"10.3310/PASQ1155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PASQ1155","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The key role of medical workforce well-being in the delivery of excellent and equitable care is recognised internationally. However, doctors are known to experience significant mental ill health and erosion of their well-being due to challenging demands and pressurised work environments. Existing workplace support strategies often have limited effect and do not consider the multiple factors contributing to poor well-being in doctors (e.g. individual, organisational and social), nor whether interventions have been implemented effectively.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' workplace well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.</p><p><strong>Design and method: </strong>Three inter-related sequential phases of research activity: Phase 1: a typology of interventions and mapping tool to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being based on iterative cycles of analysis of published and in-practice interventions and informed by relevant theories and frameworks and engagement with stakeholders. Phase 2: realist evaluation consistent with Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality standards of existing strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being in eight purposively selected acute National Health Service trusts in England based on 124 interviews with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders. Phase 3: codeveloped implementation guidance for all National Health Service trusts to optimise their strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being - drawing on phases 1 and 2, and engagement with stakeholders in three online national workshops.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1: although many sources did not clarify their underlying assumptions about causal pathways or the theoretical basis of interventions, we were able to develop a typology and mapping tool which can be used to conceptualise interventions by type (e.g. whether they are designed to be largely preventative or 'curative'). Phase 2: key findings from our realist interviews were that: (1) solutions needed to align with problems to support doctor's well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) involving doctors in creating solutions was important to address their well-being problems; (3) doctors often do not know what well-being support is available and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support. Phase 3: our 'Workplace well-being MythBuster's guide' provides constructive evidence-based implementation guidance, while authentically representing the predominantly negative experiences reported in phase 2.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Although we sampled for diversity, the eight trusts we worked with may not be representative of all trusts in England.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Misaligned ","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 30","pages":"1-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144985381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emma Smith, Shirley Lewis, Lynne Gilmour, Louise Honeybul, Helen Cheyne, Narendra Aladangady, Brigid Featherstone, Margaret Maxwell, Joanne Neale, Mariana Gonzalez Utrilla, Polly Radcliffe
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women who use and/or are in treatment for using drugs during the perinatal period have complex health and social care needs. Substance use in the perinatal period is multifaceted, with many confounding factors that may impact the long-term health and well-being of both mothers and children. Evidence is needed to identify which psychosocial interventions are effective for women who use and/or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period.</p><p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>(1) Describe the range of psychosocial interventions available for women who use and/or are in treatment for drugs in the perinatal period; (2) to document evidence on the effectiveness of interventions and (3) identify interventions that women feel most meet their needs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted following a predetermined protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for mixed-methods systematic reviews, adopting a segregated approach.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Eight databases were searched for articles meeting the inclusion criteria on 7 April 2022, and updated searches were run on 5 February 2024. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed articles published after 1990 and available in English. In total, 15,655 articles were identified. Following screening by four reviewers by title and abstract and then full text, 197 articles were included in the review. A data extraction template was used to extract study characteristics and results. Quality was assessed using the mixed-methods Quality Appraisal Tool. Cohen's <i>d</i> was used to measure the effect size for quantitative data to understand if an intervention had a small (> 0.2), medium (> 0.5) or large effect (> 0.8). Effectiveness was measured through three outcomes: (1) improvements and engagement with and retention in substance use treatment services for women in the prenatal and postnatal period; (2) reductions in substance use by women in the perinatal period and (3) improvements in engagement with and retention in prenatal care. For qualitative data, articles were grouped by the intervention type and the authors' analytical themes and conclusions were thematically synthesised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 197 included studies described 217 separate interventions. Most interventions (85.3%) were community-based, delivered in more than one way (49.3%), and delivered in single settings (50.6%), although some were colocated alongside other services (22.1%). No conclusive evidence for effectiveness was established for any type of intervention, although most interventions that improved retention in substance use services included practical support. The qualitative synthesis supported these findings and additionally suggested that women appreciated being able to access multiple services in one place: non-judgemental, trauma-informed services and peer-support models.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </stro
{"title":"Meeting the needs of women in the perinatal period, who use or are in treatment for using drugs: A mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Emma Smith, Shirley Lewis, Lynne Gilmour, Louise Honeybul, Helen Cheyne, Narendra Aladangady, Brigid Featherstone, Margaret Maxwell, Joanne Neale, Mariana Gonzalez Utrilla, Polly Radcliffe","doi":"10.3310/GJPR0321","DOIUrl":"10.3310/GJPR0321","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women who use and/or are in treatment for using drugs during the perinatal period have complex health and social care needs. Substance use in the perinatal period is multifaceted, with many confounding factors that may impact the long-term health and well-being of both mothers and children. Evidence is needed to identify which psychosocial interventions are effective for women who use and/or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period.</p><p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>(1) Describe the range of psychosocial interventions available for women who use and/or are in treatment for drugs in the perinatal period; (2) to document evidence on the effectiveness of interventions and (3) identify interventions that women feel most meet their needs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted following a predetermined protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for mixed-methods systematic reviews, adopting a segregated approach.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Eight databases were searched for articles meeting the inclusion criteria on 7 April 2022, and updated searches were run on 5 February 2024. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed articles published after 1990 and available in English. In total, 15,655 articles were identified. Following screening by four reviewers by title and abstract and then full text, 197 articles were included in the review. A data extraction template was used to extract study characteristics and results. Quality was assessed using the mixed-methods Quality Appraisal Tool. Cohen's <i>d</i> was used to measure the effect size for quantitative data to understand if an intervention had a small (> 0.2), medium (> 0.5) or large effect (> 0.8). Effectiveness was measured through three outcomes: (1) improvements and engagement with and retention in substance use treatment services for women in the prenatal and postnatal period; (2) reductions in substance use by women in the perinatal period and (3) improvements in engagement with and retention in prenatal care. For qualitative data, articles were grouped by the intervention type and the authors' analytical themes and conclusions were thematically synthesised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 197 included studies described 217 separate interventions. Most interventions (85.3%) were community-based, delivered in more than one way (49.3%), and delivered in single settings (50.6%), although some were colocated alongside other services (22.1%). No conclusive evidence for effectiveness was established for any type of intervention, although most interventions that improved retention in substance use services included practical support. The qualitative synthesis supported these findings and additionally suggested that women appreciated being able to access multiple services in one place: non-judgemental, trauma-informed services and peer-support models.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </stro","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144985393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Louisa J Ells, Tamara Brown, Jamie Matu, Ken Clare, Simon Rowlands, Maria Maynard, Karina Kinsella, Kevin Drew, Jordan R Marwood, Pooja Dhir, Tamla S Evans, Maria Bryant, Wendy Burton, Duncan Radley, Jim McKenna, Catherine Homer, Adam Martin, Davide Tebaldi, Tayamika Zabula, Stuart W Flint, Chris Keyworth, Mick Marston, Tanefa Apekey, Janet E Cade, Chirag Bakhai
Background: National Health Service England piloted a low-calorie diet programme, delivered through total diet replacement and behaviour change support via 1 : 1, group or digital delivery, to improve type 2 diabetes in adults with excess weight.
Aim: To coproduce a qualitative and economic evaluation of the National Health Service low-calorie diet pilot, integrated with National Health Service data to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost-effectiveness, implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations.
Research questions: What are the theoretical principles, behaviour change components, content and mode of delivery of the programme, and is it delivered with fidelity to National Health Service specifications? What are the service provider, user and National Health Service staff experiences of the programme? Do sociodemographics influence programme access, uptake, compliance and success? What aspects of the service work and what do not work, for whom, in what context and why? Can the programme be improved to enhance patient experience and address inequities? What are the programme delivery costs, and policy implications for wide-spread adoption?
Methods: A mixed-methods study underpinned by a realist-informed approach was delivered across five work packages, involving: semistructured interviews with service users (n = 67), National Health Service staff (n = 55), service providers (n = 9); 13 service provider focus groups; and service user surveys (n = 719). Findings were triangulated with clinical data from the National Health Service England's first cohort analysis (n = 7540).
Results: Fifty-five per cent of service users who started total diet replacement completed the programme and lost an average of 10.3 kg; 32% of those with data available to measure remission achieved it. Examination of programme mobilisation identified barriers around referral equality and the impact of COVID-19, while effective cross-stakeholder working and communication were key facilitators. Service delivery and fidelity assessments identified a drift in implementation fidelity, alongside variation in the behaviour change content across providers. Perceived barriers to programme uptake and engagement aligned across service providers and users, resulting in key learning on: the importance of person-centred care, service user support needs, improvements to total diet replacement and the social and cultural impact of the programme. Early National Health Service quantitative analyses suggest some socioeconomic variation in programme uptake, completion and outcomes. Insights from the evaluation and National Health Service data were combined to develop the programme theory and underpinning context, mechanisms and outcomes. These were used to develop a list of recommendations to improv
{"title":"Evaluation of the NHS England Low-Calorie Diet implementation pilot: a coproduced mixed-method study.","authors":"Louisa J Ells, Tamara Brown, Jamie Matu, Ken Clare, Simon Rowlands, Maria Maynard, Karina Kinsella, Kevin Drew, Jordan R Marwood, Pooja Dhir, Tamla S Evans, Maria Bryant, Wendy Burton, Duncan Radley, Jim McKenna, Catherine Homer, Adam Martin, Davide Tebaldi, Tayamika Zabula, Stuart W Flint, Chris Keyworth, Mick Marston, Tanefa Apekey, Janet E Cade, Chirag Bakhai","doi":"10.3310/MPRT2139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MPRT2139","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>National Health Service England piloted a low-calorie diet programme, delivered through total diet replacement and behaviour change support via 1 : 1, group or digital delivery, to improve type 2 diabetes in adults with excess weight.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To coproduce a qualitative and economic evaluation of the National Health Service low-calorie diet pilot, integrated with National Health Service data to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost-effectiveness, implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What are the theoretical principles, behaviour change components, content and mode of delivery of the programme, and is it delivered with fidelity to National Health Service specifications? What are the service provider, user and National Health Service staff experiences of the programme? Do sociodemographics influence programme access, uptake, compliance and success? What aspects of the service work and what do not work, for whom, in what context and why? Can the programme be improved to enhance patient experience and address inequities? What are the programme delivery costs, and policy implications for wide-spread adoption?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study underpinned by a realist-informed approach was delivered across five work packages, involving: semistructured interviews with service users (<i>n</i> = 67), National Health Service staff (<i>n</i> = 55), service providers (<i>n</i> = 9); 13 service provider focus groups; and service user surveys (<i>n</i> = 719). Findings were triangulated with clinical data from the National Health Service England's first cohort analysis (<i>n</i> = 7540).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five per cent of service users who started total diet replacement completed the programme and lost an average of 10.3 kg; 32% of those with data available to measure remission achieved it. Examination of programme mobilisation identified barriers around referral equality and the impact of COVID-19, while effective cross-stakeholder working and communication were key facilitators. Service delivery and fidelity assessments identified a drift in implementation fidelity, alongside variation in the behaviour change content across providers. Perceived barriers to programme uptake and engagement aligned across service providers and users, resulting in key learning on: the importance of person-centred care, service user support needs, improvements to total diet replacement and the social and cultural impact of the programme. Early National Health Service quantitative analyses suggest some socioeconomic variation in programme uptake, completion and outcomes. Insights from the evaluation and National Health Service data were combined to develop the programme theory and underpinning context, mechanisms and outcomes. These were used to develop a list of recommendations to improv","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 29","pages":"1-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144769532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Debra Westlake, Amadea Turk, Steven Markham, Jordan Gorenberg, Joanne Reeve, Caroline Mitchell, Kerryn Husk, Sabi Redwood, Tony Meacock, Catherine Pope, Beccy Baird, Kamal Mahtani
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social prescribing link workers formed part of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme introduced into primary care in England from 2019. Link workers assist patients experiencing issues affecting their health and well-being that are 'non-medical' (e.g. lack of social connections, financial difficulties and housing problems). They give patients space to consider these non-medical issues and, when relevant, connect them to support, often within the voluntary-community-social-enterprise sector. We conducted an earlier realist review on the link worker role in primary care. We then carried out a realist evaluation, described in this report, to address the question: When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes - what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop evidence-based recommendations to optimise the implementation of link workers in primary care and to enable patients to receive the best support possible.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A realist evaluation, involving two work packages.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Data were collected around seven link workers in different parts of England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For work package 1, researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker - going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare professionals and with voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff. During this time, researchers had a daily debrief with the link worker, inviting them to reflect on their working day, and they collected relevant documents (e.g. job descriptions and information on social prescribing given to patients). They also conducted interviews with 93 primary care/voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff and 61 patients. As part of this work package, data on patient contact with a general practitioner before and after being referred to a link worker were collected. Work package 2 consisted of follow-up interviews (9-12 months later) with patients; 41 were reinterviewed. In addition, link workers were reinterviewed. A realist logic of analysis was used to test (confirm, refute or refine) the programme theory we developed from our realist review. Analysis explored connections between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to explain how, why and in what circumstances the implementation of link workers might be beneficial (or not) to patients and/or healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We produced three papers from the research - one on link workers 'holding' patients, one on the role of discretion in their job, and another exploring patient-focused data and readiness to engage in social prescribing. Data from these papers were considered in relation to Normalisation Process Theory - a framework for conceptualising the implementation of new interventions into practice (e.g. link workers into primary care). By doing so, we identified infrastructural factors required to help l
{"title":"Implementation of link workers in primary care: Synopsis of findings from a realist evaluation.","authors":"Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Debra Westlake, Amadea Turk, Steven Markham, Jordan Gorenberg, Joanne Reeve, Caroline Mitchell, Kerryn Husk, Sabi Redwood, Tony Meacock, Catherine Pope, Beccy Baird, Kamal Mahtani","doi":"10.3310/KHGT9993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/KHGT9993","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social prescribing link workers formed part of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme introduced into primary care in England from 2019. Link workers assist patients experiencing issues affecting their health and well-being that are 'non-medical' (e.g. lack of social connections, financial difficulties and housing problems). They give patients space to consider these non-medical issues and, when relevant, connect them to support, often within the voluntary-community-social-enterprise sector. We conducted an earlier realist review on the link worker role in primary care. We then carried out a realist evaluation, described in this report, to address the question: When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes - what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop evidence-based recommendations to optimise the implementation of link workers in primary care and to enable patients to receive the best support possible.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A realist evaluation, involving two work packages.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Data were collected around seven link workers in different parts of England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For work package 1, researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker - going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare professionals and with voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff. During this time, researchers had a daily debrief with the link worker, inviting them to reflect on their working day, and they collected relevant documents (e.g. job descriptions and information on social prescribing given to patients). They also conducted interviews with 93 primary care/voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff and 61 patients. As part of this work package, data on patient contact with a general practitioner before and after being referred to a link worker were collected. Work package 2 consisted of follow-up interviews (9-12 months later) with patients; 41 were reinterviewed. In addition, link workers were reinterviewed. A realist logic of analysis was used to test (confirm, refute or refine) the programme theory we developed from our realist review. Analysis explored connections between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to explain how, why and in what circumstances the implementation of link workers might be beneficial (or not) to patients and/or healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We produced three papers from the research - one on link workers 'holding' patients, one on the role of discretion in their job, and another exploring patient-focused data and readiness to engage in social prescribing. Data from these papers were considered in relation to Normalisation Process Theory - a framework for conceptualising the implementation of new interventions into practice (e.g. link workers into primary care). By doing so, we identified infrastructural factors required to help l","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 27","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144786269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, David Culliford, Jeremy Jones, Francesca Lambert, Paul Meredith, Bruna Rubbo, Lesley Turner, Chiara Dall'Ora
<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Health Service faces significant challenges in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Recruiting unregistered staff is often adopted as a solution to the registered nurse shortage, but recent research found lower registered nurse staffing levels increase hospital mortality with no evidence that higher levels of assistant staff reduced risk.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of variation in the size and composition of the staff on acute hospital wards in England. To determine if results are likely to be sensitive to staff groups such as doctors and therapists, who are not on ward rosters, associations between staffing and outcomes for multiple staff groups, including medical, are explored at hospital level.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A national cross-sectional panel study and a patient-level longitudinal observational study using routine data.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>All English acute hospital Trusts and a subsample of four Trusts for the patient-level study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Naturally occurring variation in the size and composition of the workforce.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients experiencing a hospital admission with an overnight stay and nursing staff providing care on inpatient wards.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Death, patient and staff experience, length of stay, re-admission, adverse events, incidents (Datix), staff sickness, costs and quality-adjusted life-years.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Publicly available records of hospital activity, staffing and outcomes (cross-sectional study) and hospital administrative systems (longitudinal study).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the cross-sectional study, lower staffing levels from doctors and allied health professionals were associated with increased risk of death. Higher nurse staffing levels were associated with better patient experience and staff well-being. In the longitudinal study, for adult inpatients, exposure to days with lower-than-expected registered nurses or nursing assistant staff was associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08/1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.09/1.06 to 1.08) and longer hospital stays. Low registered nurse staffing was also associated with increased hazard of re-admission (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.02). Eliminating low staffing cost £2778 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoidance of registered nurse understaffing gave more benefits and was more cost-effective for highly acute patients. Although high bank or agency staffing was associated with increased hazard of death, avoiding low staffing using temporary staff still reduced mortality but was more costly and less effective than using permanent staff. If costs of avoided hospital stays are included, avoiding low staffing generates a net cost saving. Exploration of thr
{"title":"Consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of workforce configurations in English acute hospitals.","authors":"Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, David Culliford, Jeremy Jones, Francesca Lambert, Paul Meredith, Bruna Rubbo, Lesley Turner, Chiara Dall'Ora","doi":"10.3310/ZBAR9152","DOIUrl":"10.3310/ZBAR9152","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Health Service faces significant challenges in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Recruiting unregistered staff is often adopted as a solution to the registered nurse shortage, but recent research found lower registered nurse staffing levels increase hospital mortality with no evidence that higher levels of assistant staff reduced risk.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of variation in the size and composition of the staff on acute hospital wards in England. To determine if results are likely to be sensitive to staff groups such as doctors and therapists, who are not on ward rosters, associations between staffing and outcomes for multiple staff groups, including medical, are explored at hospital level.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A national cross-sectional panel study and a patient-level longitudinal observational study using routine data.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>All English acute hospital Trusts and a subsample of four Trusts for the patient-level study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Naturally occurring variation in the size and composition of the workforce.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients experiencing a hospital admission with an overnight stay and nursing staff providing care on inpatient wards.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Death, patient and staff experience, length of stay, re-admission, adverse events, incidents (Datix), staff sickness, costs and quality-adjusted life-years.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Publicly available records of hospital activity, staffing and outcomes (cross-sectional study) and hospital administrative systems (longitudinal study).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the cross-sectional study, lower staffing levels from doctors and allied health professionals were associated with increased risk of death. Higher nurse staffing levels were associated with better patient experience and staff well-being. In the longitudinal study, for adult inpatients, exposure to days with lower-than-expected registered nurses or nursing assistant staff was associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08/1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.09/1.06 to 1.08) and longer hospital stays. Low registered nurse staffing was also associated with increased hazard of re-admission (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.02). Eliminating low staffing cost £2778 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoidance of registered nurse understaffing gave more benefits and was more cost-effective for highly acute patients. Although high bank or agency staffing was associated with increased hazard of death, avoiding low staffing using temporary staff still reduced mortality but was more costly and less effective than using permanent staff. If costs of avoided hospital stays are included, avoiding low staffing generates a net cost saving. Exploration of thr","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 25","pages":"1-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144577550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Mother and Baby Units are specialised psychiatric facilities for women during and after pregnancy. In the United Kingdom, efforts have been made to expand the Mother and Baby Unit availability and establish care guidelines. However, the accessibility of these services for ethnic minority women remains relatively unexplored despite well-documented disparities.
Aims: To explore patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units in three UK localities, with a focus on variations in pathways between services and among ethnic groups.
Methods: This is a three-site, longitudinal retrospective service evaluation conducted in Birmingham, London and Nottingham during a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2019). Electronic records were accessed to extract data on the type of admission, the referral process and the type of pathway (simple or complex). The simple pathway entailed contact with one clinician/service prior to admission to the Mother and Baby Unit, while the complex pathway involved interactions with two or more clinicians/services before Mother and Baby Unit admission. Data were collected using the adapted World Health Organization Encounter form and were analysed using uni- and multivariable analyses.
Results: Electronic records from 198 patients were analysed, with participants distributed proportionally across three sites: Birmingham (n = 70, 35.4%), London (n = 62, 31.3%) and Nottingham (n = 66, 33.3%). All Mother and Baby Units were nationally commissioned and received referrals from across England. Most patients were in the post partum period, admitted for the first time through emergency, informal and complex pathways. The average length of admission was 6 weeks. Significant differences in admission characteristics were observed between services. Patients of Asian ethnicity had more emergency admissions compared to those of Black and White ethnicities. Ethnicity was the only significant factor associated with the simple/complex care pathway. After controlling for pathway-level and patient-level factors, Black patients were 6.24 times less likely to experience a complex care pathway than White patients. No evidence was found that patients from the Black ethnic background are detained more often than White patients.
Limitations: The heterogeneity among categorised ethnic groups, data extracted solely from electronic records without validation through patients' personal accounts of their care pathways, unanalysed declined referrals and the utilisation of pre-COVID-19 pandemic data. The ethnic composition of the study sample matched that of the UK maternity population in the Nottingham subsample, but Black and Asian populations were over-represented in the Birmingham and London subsamples.
Conclusion: The study provides valuable insights into patient journeys to Mother and Baby Units
{"title":"Understanding patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units: a longitudinal retrospective service evaluation in the UK.","authors":"Nikolina Jovanović, Žan Lep, Giles Berrisford, Aysegul Dirik, Julia Barber, Bukola Kelani, Olivia Protti","doi":"10.3310/GDVS2427","DOIUrl":"10.3310/GDVS2427","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mother and Baby Units are specialised psychiatric facilities for women during and after pregnancy. In the United Kingdom, efforts have been made to expand the Mother and Baby Unit availability and establish care guidelines. However, the accessibility of these services for ethnic minority women remains relatively unexplored despite well-documented disparities.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units in three UK localities, with a focus on variations in pathways between services and among ethnic groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a three-site, longitudinal retrospective service evaluation conducted in Birmingham, London and Nottingham during a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2019). Electronic records were accessed to extract data on the type of admission, the referral process and the type of pathway (simple or complex). The simple pathway entailed contact with one clinician/service prior to admission to the Mother and Baby Unit, while the complex pathway involved interactions with two or more clinicians/services before Mother and Baby Unit admission. Data were collected using the adapted World Health Organization Encounter form and were analysed using uni- and multivariable analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Electronic records from 198 patients were analysed, with participants distributed proportionally across three sites: Birmingham (<i>n</i> = 70, 35.4%), London (<i>n</i> = 62, 31.3%) and Nottingham (<i>n</i> = 66, 33.3%). All Mother and Baby Units were nationally commissioned and received referrals from across England. Most patients were in the post partum period, admitted for the first time through emergency, informal and complex pathways. The average length of admission was 6 weeks. Significant differences in admission characteristics were observed between services. Patients of Asian ethnicity had more emergency admissions compared to those of Black and White ethnicities. Ethnicity was the only significant factor associated with the simple/complex care pathway. After controlling for pathway-level and patient-level factors, Black patients were 6.24 times less likely to experience a complex care pathway than White patients. No evidence was found that patients from the Black ethnic background are detained more often than White patients.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The heterogeneity among categorised ethnic groups, data extracted solely from electronic records without validation through patients' personal accounts of their care pathways, unanalysed declined referrals and the utilisation of pre-COVID-19 pandemic data. The ethnic composition of the study sample matched that of the UK maternity population in the Nottingham subsample, but Black and Asian populations were over-represented in the Birmingham and London subsamples.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study provides valuable insights into patient journeys to Mother and Baby Units","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144669253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Angus Ig Ramsay, Sonila M Tomini, Saheli Gandhi, Naomi J Fulop, Stephen Morris
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Centralising specialised healthcare services into high-volume centres is proposed to improve patient outcomes and efficiency. Most reviews focus on relatively few conditions and a limited range of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review the evidence on centralisation of a range of specialised acute services, to analyse (1) how centralisations are defined; (2) how centralisations are organised and delivered; and (3) the relationship between centralisation and several key outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review, conducted in November 2020.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Specialised acute healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Centralisation of services into a reduced number of high-volume units.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We included 93 papers covering specialised emergency and elective acute healthcare services, published to November 2020. Definitions of centralisation commonly lacked detail, but, where available, covered centralisation's form, objectives, mechanisms and drivers. We proposed a typology of four forms of centralisation, reflecting the number and functions of specialist units (centralisation of whole pathway, centralisation of pathway components, hierarchy of specialist units, partial centralisation). For most outcomes, the majority of papers suggested a positive impact of centralisation: mortality (33/55 papers), survival (19/25), morbidity (17/27), quality of life (6/7), quality of care (22/30), length of stay (17/26), cost-effectiveness (3/3) and patient experience (3/3). Centralisation was associated with increased patient travel (9/12); 3/5 papers suggested no impact on inequalities.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This review was conducted in November 2020 and did not include grey literature or studies that did not analyse outcomes, so more recent and further evidence - for example, on types of centralisation model and how centralisation was implemented - may exist. As this was a scoping review, we did not conduct a quality assessment, which may reduce the confidence with which we may view the presented impacts of centralisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Centralisation is commonly associated with improved care and outcomes. However, research seldom describes centralised services in sufficient detail, rarely compares different service models and tends to focus on a narrow range of outcomes. Therefore, understanding the extent and nature of centralisation's impact - and the mechanisms by which it is achieved - remains elusive. By addressing these gaps, future research may of greater use to all stakeholders with an interest in centralisation.</p><p><strong>Future research: </strong>Should provide clearer descriptions of centralisations, compare different centralisation models and study a wider range of important outcomes, including patient experience and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents i
{"title":"Centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a scoping review of definitions, types, and impact on outcomes.","authors":"Angus Ig Ramsay, Sonila M Tomini, Saheli Gandhi, Naomi J Fulop, Stephen Morris","doi":"10.3310/REMD6648","DOIUrl":"10.3310/REMD6648","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Centralising specialised healthcare services into high-volume centres is proposed to improve patient outcomes and efficiency. Most reviews focus on relatively few conditions and a limited range of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review the evidence on centralisation of a range of specialised acute services, to analyse (1) how centralisations are defined; (2) how centralisations are organised and delivered; and (3) the relationship between centralisation and several key outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review, conducted in November 2020.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Specialised acute healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Centralisation of services into a reduced number of high-volume units.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We included 93 papers covering specialised emergency and elective acute healthcare services, published to November 2020. Definitions of centralisation commonly lacked detail, but, where available, covered centralisation's form, objectives, mechanisms and drivers. We proposed a typology of four forms of centralisation, reflecting the number and functions of specialist units (centralisation of whole pathway, centralisation of pathway components, hierarchy of specialist units, partial centralisation). For most outcomes, the majority of papers suggested a positive impact of centralisation: mortality (33/55 papers), survival (19/25), morbidity (17/27), quality of life (6/7), quality of care (22/30), length of stay (17/26), cost-effectiveness (3/3) and patient experience (3/3). Centralisation was associated with increased patient travel (9/12); 3/5 papers suggested no impact on inequalities.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This review was conducted in November 2020 and did not include grey literature or studies that did not analyse outcomes, so more recent and further evidence - for example, on types of centralisation model and how centralisation was implemented - may exist. As this was a scoping review, we did not conduct a quality assessment, which may reduce the confidence with which we may view the presented impacts of centralisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Centralisation is commonly associated with improved care and outcomes. However, research seldom describes centralised services in sufficient detail, rarely compares different service models and tends to focus on a narrow range of outcomes. Therefore, understanding the extent and nature of centralisation's impact - and the mechanisms by which it is achieved - remains elusive. By addressing these gaps, future research may of greater use to all stakeholders with an interest in centralisation.</p><p><strong>Future research: </strong>Should provide clearer descriptions of centralisations, compare different centralisation models and study a wider range of important outcomes, including patient experience and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents i","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144762971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sandra Bucci, Filippo Varese, Ethel Quayle, Kim Cartwright, Amanda Larkin, Cindy Chan, Prathiba Chitsabesan, Victoria Green, William Hewins, Matthew Machin, Alice Newton, Erica Niebauer, John Norrie, Gillian Radford, Cathy Richards, Marina Sandys, Victoria Selby, Sara Shafi, Jennifer Ward, Pauline Whelan, Matthias Schwannauer
Background: No evidence-based support for young people who have experienced technology-assisted sexual abuse exists. The project's aims were to develop a digital intervention that improves mentalisation (the ability to understand the minds of oneself and others that underlies behaviour) to reduce the risk for revictimisation and future harm and improve young people's resilience.
Objectives: To co-design a mentalisation-based digital intervention; determine its feasibility, acceptability, safety and usability; and determine how to best integrate this into practice.
Methods: A mixed-methods, non-randomised study in young people aged 12-18 years exposed to technology-assisted sexual abuse across two United Kingdom sites. We adapted an existing mentalisation-based therapy manual and co-designed a digital health intervention (app) using participatory methods. Recommendations from our pre-trial qualitative work with healthcare professionals supporting young people with technology-assisted sexual abuse and lived experience consultation informed app development and trial procedures. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the digital intervention measured against relevant fields of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for feasibility studies. Intervention safety was reported against an adverse events procedure. Usability was guided by the framework for analysing and measuring usage and engagement data in digital interventions. Acceptability was examined using qualitative methods. The planned sample size of the feasibility clinical trial was 60 young people.
Results: Between May 2022 and March 2023, 147 young people were screened for eligibility for the feasibility clinical trial; 72 referrals were made and 43 young people were allocated to receive the intervention. We found that it was possible to recruit and retain participants to this trial. Quantitative and qualitative data showed that the i-Minds app was safe, acceptable and associated with promising signals of efficacy on valuable outcomes post treatment, including technology-assisted-sexual-abuse-related post-traumatic symptoms, resilience, internalising symptoms and reflective functioning. Most participants accessed or completed app modules. User feedback indicated that participants had a positive experience using the app, positively increasing their knowledge/understanding of their own mental health and their motivation to address their mental health difficulties. Practitioners identified the barriers to implementing i-Minds into routine practice as not being involved in its design at the outset, possible impact on workload and whether digital health interventions might replace routine care. Facilitators included the distinct nature and specificity of the i-Minds app for the target group and its ability to support young people on service waiting lists.
{"title":"A digital intervention to improve mental health and interpersonal resilience for young people who have experienced online sexual abuse: the i-Minds non-randomised feasibility clinical trial and nested qualitative study.","authors":"Sandra Bucci, Filippo Varese, Ethel Quayle, Kim Cartwright, Amanda Larkin, Cindy Chan, Prathiba Chitsabesan, Victoria Green, William Hewins, Matthew Machin, Alice Newton, Erica Niebauer, John Norrie, Gillian Radford, Cathy Richards, Marina Sandys, Victoria Selby, Sara Shafi, Jennifer Ward, Pauline Whelan, Matthias Schwannauer","doi":"10.3310/THAL8732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/THAL8732","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No evidence-based support for young people who have experienced technology-assisted sexual abuse exists. The project's aims were to develop a digital intervention that improves mentalisation (the ability to understand the minds of oneself and others that underlies behaviour) to reduce the risk for revictimisation and future harm and improve young people's resilience.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To co-design a mentalisation-based digital intervention; determine its feasibility, acceptability, safety and usability; and determine how to best integrate this into practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods, non-randomised study in young people aged 12-18 years exposed to technology-assisted sexual abuse across two United Kingdom sites. We adapted an existing mentalisation-based therapy manual and co-designed a digital health intervention (app) using participatory methods. Recommendations from our pre-trial qualitative work with healthcare professionals supporting young people with technology-assisted sexual abuse and lived experience consultation informed app development and trial procedures. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the digital intervention measured against relevant fields of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for feasibility studies. Intervention safety was reported against an adverse events procedure. Usability was guided by the framework for analysing and measuring usage and engagement data in digital interventions. Acceptability was examined using qualitative methods. The planned sample size of the feasibility clinical trial was 60 young people.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2022 and March 2023, 147 young people were screened for eligibility for the feasibility clinical trial; 72 referrals were made and 43 young people were allocated to receive the intervention. We found that it was possible to recruit and retain participants to this trial. Quantitative and qualitative data showed that the i-Minds app was safe, acceptable and associated with promising signals of efficacy on valuable outcomes post treatment, including technology-assisted-sexual-abuse-related post-traumatic symptoms, resilience, internalising symptoms and reflective functioning. Most participants accessed or completed app modules. User feedback indicated that participants had a positive experience using the app, positively increasing their knowledge/understanding of their own mental health and their motivation to address their mental health difficulties. Practitioners identified the barriers to implementing i-Minds into routine practice as not being involved in its design at the outset, possible impact on workload and whether digital health interventions might replace routine care. Facilitators included the distinct nature and specificity of the i-Minds app for the target group and its ability to support young people on service waiting lists.</p><p","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 28","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144777559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}