The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. AIM: The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. DESIGN & SETTING: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control'). METHOD: PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.

Status of primary and secondary mental healthcare of people with severe mental illness: an epidemiological study from the UK PARTNERS2 programme.

BACKGROUND: There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. AIMS: This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. METHOD: We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. RESULTS: The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer study).

BACKGROUND: Depression and debt are common in the UK. Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer) aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the addition of a primary care debt counselling advice service to usual care for patients with depression and debt. However, the study was terminated early during the internal pilot trial phase because of recruitment delays. This report describes the rationale, methods and findings of the pilot study, and implications for future research. OBJECTIVES: The overarching aim of the internal pilot was to identify and resolve problems, thereby assessing the feasibility of the main trial. The specific objectives were to confirm methods for practice recruitment and the ability to recruit patients via the proposed approaches; to determine the acceptability of the study interventions and outcome measures; to assess contamination; to confirm the randomisation method for main trial and the level of participant attrition; and to check the robustness of data collection systems. DESIGN: An adaptive, parallel, two-group multicentre randomised controlled pilot trial with a nested mixed-methods process and economic evaluation. Both individual- and cluster (general practice)-level were was used in the pilot phase to assign participants to intervention or control groups. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals were included who were aged ≥ 18 years, scored ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory II and self-identified as having debt worries. The main exclusion criteria were being actively suicidal or psychotic and/or severely depressed and unresponsive to treatment; having a severe addiction to alcohol/illicit drugs; being unable/unwilling to give written informed consent; currently participating in other research including follow-up phases; having received Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) debt advice in the past year; and not wanting debt advice via a general practice. INTERVENTIONS: The participants in the intervention group were given debt advice provided by the CAB and shared biopsychosocial assessment, in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) and two debt advice leaflets. The participants in the control group were given advice leaflets provided by the general practitioner and TAU only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Outcomes of the pilot trial - the proportion of eligible patients who consented, the number of participants recruited compared with target, assessment of contamination, and assessment of patient satisfaction with intervention and outcome measures. (2) Participant outcomes - primary - Beck Depression Inventory II; secondary - psychological well-being, health and social care utilisation, service satisfaction, substance misuse, record of priority/non-priority debts, life events and difficulties, and explanatory measures. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 4 months post randomisation. Other data sources - qualitative interviews were conducted with participants, clinicians and CAB advisors. RESULTS: Of the 238 expressions of interest screened, 61 participants (26%) were recruited and randomised (32 in the intervention group and 29 in the control group). All participants provided baseline outcomes and 52 provided the primary outcome at 4 months' follow-up (14.7% dropout). Seventeen participants allocated to the intervention saw a CAB advisor. Descriptive statistics are reported for participants with complete outcomes at baseline and 4 months' follow-up. Our qualitative findings suggest that the relationship between debt and depression is complex, and the impact of each on the other is compounded by other psychological, social and contextual influences. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of low recruitment, this trial was terminated at the internal pilot phase and was too small for inferential statistical analysis. We recommend ways to reduce this risk when conducting complex trials among vulnerable populations recruited in community settings. These cover trial design, the design and delivery of interventions, recruitment strategies and support for sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79705874. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Mark Gabbay and Adele Ring are part-funded by NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North West Coast and Richard Byng and Rod S Taylor, Vashti Berry and Elizabeth Shaw part-funded by NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula.

Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Much has been written about public involvement (PI) in health and social care research, but underpinning values are rarely made explicit despite the potential for these to have significant influence on the practice and assessment of PI. OBJECTIVE: The narrative review reported here is part of a larger MRC-funded study which is producing a framework and related guidance on assessing the impact of PI in health and social care research. The review aimed to identify and characterize the range of values associated with PI that are central elements of the framework. METHODS: We undertook a review and narrative synthesis of diverse literatures of PI in health and social care research, including twenty existing reviews and twenty-four chapters in sixteen textbooks. RESULTS: Three overarching value systems were identified, each containing five value clusters. (i) A system concerned with ethical and/or political issues including value clusters associated with empowerment; change/action; accountability/transparency; rights; and ethics (normative values). (ii). A system concerned with the consequences of public involvement in research including value clusters associated with effectiveness; quality/relevance; validity/reliability; representativeness/objectivity/generalizability; and evidence (substantive values). (iii) A system concerned with the conduct of public involvement in including value clusters associated with Partnership/equality; respect/trust; openness and honesty; independence; and clarity (process values). CONCLUSION: Our review identified three systems associated with PI in health and social care research focused on normative, substantive and process values. The findings suggest that research teams should consider and make explicit the values they attach to PI in research and discuss ways in which potential tensions may be managed in order to maximize the benefits of PI for researchers, lay experts and the research.