Randomised controlled trial to improve health and reduce substance use in established psychosis (IMPaCT): cost-effectiveness of integrated psychosocial health promotion.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence that people with severe mental illness have unhealthy lifestyles, high rates of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, and greater risk of early mortality. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention seeking to improve physical health and reduce substance use in people with psychosis. METHODS: Participants with a psychotic disorder, aged 18-65 years old and registered on an enhanced care approach programme or equivalent were recruited from community mental health teams in six mental health trusts in England. Participants were randomisation to either standard community mental health team care (treatment as usual) or treatment as usual with an integrated health promotion intervention (IMPaCT). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and societal perspectives were conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Total health and social care costs and total societal costs at 12 and 15 months were calculated as well as cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves) at 15 months based on quality of life (SF-36 mental and physical health components, primary outcome measures) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using two measures, EQ-5D-3 L and SF-36. Data were analysed using bootstrapped regressions with covariates for relevant baseline variables. RESULTS: At 12-15 months 301 participants had full data needed to be included in the economic evaluation. There were no differences in adjusted health and social care costs (£95, 95% CI -£1410 to £1599) or societal costs (£675, 95% CI -£1039 to £2388) between the intervention and control arms. Similarly, there were no differences between the groups in the SF-36 mental component (-0.80, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06), SF-36 physical component (-0.68, 95% CI -3.01 to 1.65), QALYs estimated from the SF-36 (-0.00, -0.01 to 0.00) or QALYs estimated from the EQ-5D-3 L (0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for all four outcomes and from both cost perspectives indicate that the probability of the health promotion intervention being cost-effective does not exceed 0.4 for willingness to pay thresholds ranging from £0-£50,000. CONCLUSIONS: Alongside no evidence of additional quality of life/clinical benefit, there is also no evidence of cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58667926 . Date retrospectively registered: 23/04/2010. Recruitment start date: 01/03/2010.

Supporting student mental health nurses in clinical placement through virtual in-practice support (VIPS): Innovation uptake and the 'VIPS' project.

OBJECTIVE: The integration of technology in nurse education has become an essential element of academic practice. Yet innovation uptake between academic institutions across the four countries of the UK and their clinical practice partners has proved problematic, leading to a slow introduction of digitally enhanced teaching and learning innovations, particularly in the area of clinical decision making and leadership. PARTICIPANTS: The Virtual in Practice Support (VIPS) project involved two academic institutions working with the same mental health care service partner aiming to maximise student clinical placement learning. Student nurses in their final year of training were invited to take part in testing the viability of distance e-tutoring (via computer access to academic nurse lecturers) for facilitated critical reflection. DESIGN: An evaluation of the use of video linked conference sessions, set up for students to undertake a group based online (i.e. virtual) group tutorial is presented. METHODS: All participants completed an evaluation data sheet using a five point Likert scale and free text evaluation feedback form completed at the end of each online tutorial session. Students were also invited to a focus group and all tutors were interviewed at the completion of the project. RESULTS: The VIPS project findings highlight; i) the importance of a clear project vision for innovation uptake ii) consequences of working with innovation champions and iii) how technology can be used to maximise student learning across geographical distance through online facilitated group critical discussion. CONCLUSION: VIPS' participants were able to articulate positive outcomes as a result of engaging in a multi-institutional project that capitalised on the richness of nursing clinical practice learning experience for both the students and the academics involved as innovation champions.