Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapy is effective for symptoms of mental distress, but many groups with high levels of mental distress face significant barriers in terms of access to care, as current interventions may not be sensitive to their needs or their understanding of mental health. There is a need to develop forms of psychological therapy that are acceptable to these groups, feasible to deliver in routine settings, and clinically and cost effective. METHODS: We developed a culturally sensitive wellbeing intervention with individual, group and sign-posting elements, and tested its feasibility and acceptability for patients from ethnic minorities and older people in an exploratory randomised trial. RESULTS: We recruited 57 patients (57% of our target) from 4 disadvantaged localities in the NW of England. The results of the exploratory trial suggest that the group receiving the wellbeing interventions improved compared to the group receiving usual care. For elders, the largest effects were on CORE-OM and PHQ-9. For ethnic minority patients, the largest effect was on PHQ-9. Qualitative data suggested that patients found the intervention acceptable, both in terms of content and delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory trial provides some evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of a wellbeing intervention for older and ethnic minority groups experiencing anxiety and depression, although challenges in recruitment and engagement remain. Evidence from our exploratory study of wellbeing interventions should inform new substantive trial designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN68572159.

Associations of participation in community assets with health-related quality of life and healthcare usage: a cross-sectional study of older people in the community.

BACKGROUND: Community assets are promoted as a way to improve quality of life and reduce healthcare usage. However, the quantitative impact of participation in community assets on these outcomes is not known. METHODS: We examined the association between participation in community assets and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EuroQol-5D-5L) and healthcare usage in 3686 individuals aged ≥65 years. We estimated the unadjusted differences in EuroQol-5D-5L scores and healthcare usage between participants and non-participants in community assets and then used multivariate regression to examine scores adjusted for sociodemographic and limiting long-term health conditions. We derived the net benefits of participation using a range of threshold values for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: 50% of individuals reported participation in community assets. Their EuroQol-5D-5L scores were 0.094 (95% CI 0.077 to 0.111) points higher than non-participants. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics reduced this differential to 0.081 (95% CI 0.064 to 0.098). Further controlling for limiting long-term conditions reduced this effect to 0.039 (95% CI 0.025 to 0.052). Once we adjusted for sociodemographic and limiting long-term conditions, the reductions in healthcare usage and costs associated with community asset participation were not statistically significant. Based on a threshold value of £20 000 per QALY, the net benefits of participation in community assets were £763 (95% CI £478 to £1048) per participant per year. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in community assets is associated with substantially higher HRQoL but is not associated with lower healthcare costs. The social value of developing community assets is potentially substantial.

Developing a U.K. protocol for collaborative care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the views of stakeholders including patients, general practitioners (GPs) and mental health workers on the feasibility, acceptability and barriers to a collaborative care model for treatment of depression within the context of U.K. primary health care. METHOD: We used semistructured interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of 11 patients and 38 professionals from a wide selection of primary and secondary care mental health services, as well as framework analysis using a "constant comparative" approach to identify key concepts and themes. RESULTS: Regular contact for patients with depression is acceptable and valued by both patients and professionals. However, patients value support, whereas professionals focus on information. To be acceptable to patients, contacts about medication or psychosocial support must minimize the potential for patient disempowerment. The use of the telephone is convenient and lends anonymity, but established mental health workers think it will impair their judgments. While patients merely identified the need for skilled case managers, GPs preferred established professionals; however, these workers did not see themselves in this role. All involved were cautious about deploying new workers. Additional barriers included practical and organizational issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although a telephone-delivered mix of medication support and low-intensity psychological intervention is generally acceptable, significant issues to be addressed include the values of the current mental health workforce, fears about new workers' experience and competence, the balance of face-to-face and telephone contacts and case manager education in nonspecific skills necessary to develop a therapeutic alliance, as well as the knowledge and skills required for education, medication support and behavioral activation. Qualitative research can add value to careful modeling of collaborative care prior to international implementation.

Care plans and care planning in long-term conditions: a conceptual model.

The prevalence and impact of long-term conditions continues to rise. Care planning for people with long-term conditions has been a policy priority for chronic disease management in a number of health-care systems. However, patients and providers appear unclear about the formulation and implementation of care planning. Further work in this area is therefore required to inform the development, implementation and evaluation of future care planning initiatives. We distinguish between 'care planning' (the process by which health-care professionals and patients discuss, agree and review an action plan to achieve the goals or behaviour change of most relevance and concern to the patient) and a 'care plan' (a written document recording the outcome of a care planning process). We propose a typology of care planning and care plans with three core dimensions: perspective (patient or professional), scope (a focus on goals or on behaviours) and networks (confined to the professional-patient dyad or extending to the entire care network). In addition, we draw on psychological models of mediation and moderation to outline potential mechanisms through which care planning and care plans may lead to improved outcomes for both patients and the wider health-care system. The proposed typology of care planning and care plans offered here, along with the model of the process by which care planning may influence outcomes, provide a useful framework for future policy developments and evaluations. Empirical work is required to explore the degree to which current care planning approaches and care plans can be described according to these dimensions, and the factors that determine which types of patients and professionals use which type of care plans.