Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Health services face the challenges created by complex problems, and so need complex intervention solutions. However they also experience ongoing difficulties in translating findings from research in this area in to quality improvement changes on the ground. BounceBack was a service development innovation project which sought to examine this issue through the implementation and evaluation in a primary care setting of a novel complex intervention. METHODS: The project was a collaboration between a local mental health charity, an academic unit, and GP practices. The aim was to translate the charity's model of care into practice-based evidence describing delivery and impact. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to support the implementation of the new model of primary mental health care into six GP practices. An integrated process evaluation evaluated the process and impact of care. RESULTS: Implementation quickly stalled as we identified problems with the described model of care when applied in a changing and variable primary care context. The team therefore switched to using the NPT framework to support the systematic identification and modification of the components of the complex intervention: including the core components that made it distinct (the consultation approach) and the variable components (organisational issues) that made it work in practice. The extra work significantly reduced the time available for outcome evaluation. However findings demonstrated moderately successful implementation of the model and a suggestion of hypothesised changes in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The BounceBack project demonstrates the development of a complex intervention from practice. It highlights the use of Normalisation Process Theory to support development, and not just implementation, of a complex intervention; and describes the use of the research process in the generation of practice-based evidence. Implications for future translational complex intervention research supporting practice change through scholarship are discussed.

Validation of the bladder control self-assessment questionnaire (B-SAQ) in men.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Bladder Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire (B-SAQ), a short screener to assess lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and overactive bladder (OAB) in men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-centre study including 211 patients in a urology outpatient setting. All patients completed the B-SAQ and Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ) before consultation, and the consulting urologist made an independent assessment of LUTS and the need for treatment. The psychometric properties of the B-SAQ were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 98% of respondents completed all items correctly in <5 min. The mean B-SAQ scores were 12 and 3.3, respectively for cases (n = 101) and controls (n = 108) (P < 0.001). Good correlation was evident between the B-SAQ and the KHQ. The agreement percentages between the individual B-SAQ items and the KHQ symptom severity scale were 86, 85, 84 and 79% for frequency, urgency, nocturia and urinary incontinence, respectively. Using a B-SAQ symptom score threshold of ≥4 alone had sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values for detecting LUTS of 75, 86 and 84%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.88; however, in combination with a bother score threshold of ≥1 these values changed to 92, 46 and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The B-SAQ is an easy and quick valid case-finding tool for LUTS/OAB in men, but appears to be less specific in men than in women. The B-SAQ has the potential to raise awareness of LUTS. Further validation in a community setting is required.