Service user experiences of REFOCUS: a process evaluation of a pro-recovery complex intervention.

PURPOSE: Policy is increasingly focused on implementing a recovery-orientation within mental health services, yet the subjective experience of individuals receiving a pro-recovery intervention is under-studied. The aim of this study was to explore the service user experience of receiving a complex, pro-recovery intervention (REFOCUS), which aimed to encourage the use of recovery-supporting tools and support recovery-promoting relationships. METHODS: Interviews (n = 24) and two focus groups (n = 13) were conducted as part of a process evaluation and included a purposive sample of service users who received the complex, pro-recovery intervention within the REFOCUS randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN02507940). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported that the intervention supported the development of an open and collaborative relationship with staff, with new conversations around values, strengths and goals. This was experienced as hope-inspiring and empowering. However, others described how the recovery tools were used without context, meaning participants were unclear of their purpose and did not see their benefit. During the interviews, some individuals struggled to report any new tasks or conversations occurring during the intervention. CONCLUSION: Recovery-supporting tools can support the development of a recovery-promoting relationship, which can contribute to positive outcomes for individuals. The tools should be used in a collaborative and flexible manner. Information exchanged around values, strengths and goals should be used in care-planning. As some service users struggled to report their experience of the intervention, alternative evaluation approaches need to be considered if the service user experience is to be fully captured.

The feasibility of implementing recovery, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for psychosis: comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of people experiencing psychosis have existed for over a decade, but implementation of recommended interventions is limited. Identifying influences on implementation may help to reduce this translational gap. The Structured Assessment of Feasibility (SAFE) measure is a standardised assessment of implementation blocks and enablers. The aim of this study was to characterise and compare the implementation blocks and enablers for recommended psychosis interventions. METHODS: SAFE was used to evaluate and compare three groups of interventions recommended in the 2014 NICE psychosis guideline: pharmacological (43 trials testing 5 interventions), psychosocial (65 trials testing 5 interventions), and recovery (19 trials testing 5 interventions). The 127 trial reports rated with SAFE were supplemented by published intervention manuals, research protocols, trial registrations and design papers. Differences in the number of blocks and enablers across the three interventions were tested statistically, and feasibility profiles were generated. RESULTS: There was no difference between psychosocial and recovery interventions in the number of blocks or enablers to implementation. Pharmacological interventions (a) had fewer blocks than both psychosocial interventions (χ (2)(3) = 133.77, p < 0.001) and recovery interventions (χ (2)(3) = 104.67, p < 0.001) and (b) did not differ in number of enablers from recovery interventions (χ (2)(3) = 0.74, p = 0.863) but had fewer enablers than psychosocial interventions (χ (2)(3) = 28.92, p < 0.001). Potential adverse events associated with the intervention tend to be a block for pharmacological interventions, whereas complexity of the intervention was the most consistent block for recovery and psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility profiles show that pharmacological interventions are relatively easy to implement but can sometimes involve risks. Psychosocial and recovery interventions are relatively complex but tend to be more flexible and more often manualised. SAFE ratings can contribute to tackling the current implementation challenges in mental health services, by providing a reporting guideline structure for researchers to maximise the potential for implementation and by informing prioritisation decisions by clinical guideline developers and service managers.

Implementing a complex intervention to support personal recovery: a qualitative study nested within a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate staff and trainer perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to implementing a complex intervention to help staff support the recovery of service users with a primary diagnosis of psychosis in community mental health teams. DESIGN: Process evaluation nested within a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). PARTICIPANTS: 28 interviews with mental health care staff, 3 interviews with trainers, 4 focus groups with intervention teams and 28 written trainer reports. SETTING: 14 community-based mental health teams in two UK sites (one urban, one semi-rural) who received the intervention. RESULTS: The factors influencing the implementation of the intervention can be organised under two over-arching themes: Organisational readiness for change and Training effectiveness. Organisational readiness for change comprised three sub-themes: NHS Trust readiness; Team readiness; and Practitioner readiness. Training effectiveness comprised three sub-themes: Engagement strategies; Delivery style and Modelling recovery principles. CONCLUSIONS: Three findings can inform future implementation and evaluation of complex interventions. First, the underlying intervention model predicted that three areas would be important for changing practice: staff skill development; intention to implement; and actual implementation behaviour. This study highlighted the importance of targeting the transition from practitioners' intent to implement to actual implementation behaviour, using experiential learning and target setting. Second, practitioners make inferences about organisational commitment by observing the allocation of resources, Knowledge Performance Indicators and service evaluation outcome measures. These need to be aligned with recovery values, principles and practice. Finally, we recommend the use of organisational readiness tools as an inclusion criteria for selecting both organisations and teams in cluster RCTs. We believe this would maximise the likelihood of adequate implementation and hence reduce waste in research expenditure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN02507940.