Chronic disease health risk behaviours amongst people with a mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: Amongst people with a mental illness, modifiable health risk behaviours contribute substantially to increased chronic disease morbidity and mortality. This study examined the prevalence of and interest in changing such behaviours amongst community mental health service clients in Australia. METHOD: A telephone interview was undertaken with Australian community mental health service clients. Participants reported engagement in four health risk behaviours: tobacco smoking, fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Participants were classified as at risk based upon Australian national guidelines. At-risk participants were asked whether they were considering improving their health risk behaviour within the next month. The association between psychiatric diagnosis and risk, and interest in improving health risk behaviours was examined. RESULTS: Risk prevalence was highest for inadequate vegetable consumption (78.3%), followed by inadequate fruit consumption (60%), smoking (50.7%), physical inactivity (46.8%), short-term alcohol risk (40.3%) and chronic alcohol risk (35.3%). A majority of at-risk participants were considering improving their health risk behaviour for smoking, physical inactivity and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption (65.1%, 71.1%, and 53.3%, respectively). After adjusting for demographic factors, no diagnostic categories were associated with risk for any behaviour. Those with a diagnosis of depression were more likely to be interested in quitting smoking and increasing physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of diagnosis, a high prevalence of chronic disease health risk behaviours was identified, with many participants expressing an interest in improving these behaviours. Such findings reinforce recommendations that preventive care addressing the chronic disease risks of clients be provided routinely by mental health clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000693729. URL: www.anzctr.org.au/.

The delivery of preventive care to clients of community health services.

BACKGROUND: Smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity are the primary behavioral risks for common causes of mortality and morbidity. Evidence and guidelines support routine clinician delivery of preventive care. Limited evidence describes the level delivered in community health settings. The objective was to determine the: prevalence of preventive care provided by community health clinicians; association between client and service characteristics and receipt of care; and acceptability of care. This will assist in informing interventions that facilitate adoption of opportunistic preventive care delivery to all clients. METHODS: In 2009 and 2010 a telephone survey was undertaken of 1284 clients across a network of 56 public community health facilities in one health district in New South Wales, Australia. The survey assessed receipt of preventive care (assessment, brief advice, and referral/follow-up) regarding smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol overconsumption, and physical inactivity; and acceptability of care. RESULTS: Care was most frequently reported for smoking (assessment: 59.9%, brief advice: 61.7%, and offer of referral to a telephone service: 4.5%) and least frequently for inadequate fruit or vegetable consumption (27.0%, 20.0% and 0.9% respectively). Sixteen percent reported assessment for all risks, 16.2% received brief advice for all risks, and 0.6% were offered a specific referral for all risks. The following were associated with increased care: diabetes services, number of appointments, being male, Aboriginal, unemployed, and socio-economically disadvantaged. Acceptability of preventive care was high (76.0%-95.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite strong client support, preventive care was not provided opportunistically to all, and was preferentially provided to select groups. This suggests a need for practice change strategies to enhance preventive care provision to achieve adherence to clinical guidelines.

The effectiveness of an intervention in increasing community health clinician provision of preventive care: a study protocol of a non-randomised, multiple-baseline trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services. METHODS/DESIGN: A multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation. DISCUSSION: The study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611001284954 UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER (UTN): U1111-1126-3465.

Systematic review of interventions to increase the delivery of preventive care by primary care nurses and allied health clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care nurses and allied health clinicians are potential providers of opportunistic preventive care. This systematic review aimed to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of practice change interventions in increasing nurse or allied health professional provision of any of five preventive care elements (ask, assess, advise, assist, and/or arrange) for any of four behavioural risks (smoking, inadequate nutrition, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) within a primary care setting. METHODS: A search of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was undertaken to locate controlled intervention trials published between 1992 and May 2014 that provided practice change interventions to primary care nurses and/or allied health professionals to increase preventive care. The effect of interventions aimed at increasing the provision of any of the five care elements for any of the four behavioural risks was examined. A narrative synthesis was utilised. RESULTS: From 8109 articles, seven trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials bar one, assessed multi-strategic practice change interventions (three to five strategies) focused on care by nurses (six trials) or mixed nursing/allied health clinicians. One trial examined care provision for all four risks, five trials examined care for smoking only, and one trial examined care for alcohol consumption only. For the six trials reporting significance testing (excludes one smoking care trial), significant effects favouring the intervention group were reported in at least one trial for smoking risk assessment (2/4 trials reported an effect for at least one analysis of an assessment outcome), brief advice (2/3), assistance (2/2), and arranging referral (2/3); alcohol risk assessment (1/2) and brief advice (1/2); inadequate nutrition risk assessment (1/1); and physical inactivity risk assessment and brief advice (1/1). When the number of analyses undertaken within trials focusing on smoking care was considered, the results were less promising (e.g. of the 15 analyses conducted on brief advice variables across three trials, four showed a positive effect). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effect of practice change interventions on preventive care by primary care nurses or allied health providers is inconclusive given the small number of trials and inconsistency of results between and within trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: None.

Effectiveness of an intervention in increasing the provision of preventive care by community mental health services: a non-randomized, multiple baseline implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Relative to the general population, people with a mental illness are more likely to have modifiable chronic disease health risk behaviours. Care to reduce such risks is not routinely provided by community mental health clinicians. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of an intervention in increasing the provision of preventive care by such clinicians addressing four chronic disease risk behaviours. METHODS: A multiple baseline trial was undertaken in two groups of community mental health services in New South Wales, Australia (2011-2014). A 12-month practice change intervention was sequentially implemented in each group. Outcome data were collected continuously via telephone interviews with a random sample of clients over a 3-year period, from 6 months pre-intervention in the first group, to 6 months post intervention in the second group. Outcomes were client-reported receipt of assessment, advice and referral for tobacco smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, inadequate fruit and/or vegetable consumption and inadequate physical activity and for the four behaviours combined. Logistic regression analyses examined change in client-reported receipt of care. RESULTS: There was an increase in assessment for all risks combined following the intervention (18 to 29 %; OR 3.55, p = 0.002: n = 805 at baseline, 982 at follow-up). No significant change in assessment, advice or referral for each individual risk was found. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had a limited effect on increasing the provision of preventive care. Further research is required to determine how to increase the provision of preventive care in community mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000693729.

Implementation of a smoke-free policy in an inpatient psychiatric facility: Patient-reported adherence, support, and receipt of nicotine-dependence treatment.

The implementation of smoke-free policies in inpatient psychiatric facilities, including patient adherence, mental health nursing staff support, and provision of nicotine-dependence treatment to patients, has been reported to be poor. The extent to which the quality of smoke-free policy implementation is associated with patient views of a policy is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 181 patients (53.6%, n = 97 smokers; and 46.4%, n = 84 non-smokers) in an Australian inpatient psychiatric facility with a total smoke-free policy. Smokers' adherence to the policy was poor (83.5% smoked). Only half (53.6%) perceived staff to be supportive of the policy. Most smokers used nicotine-replacement therapy (75.3%); although few received optimal nicotine-dependence treatment (19.6%). Overall, 45.9% of patients viewed the smoke-free policy in the unit as positive (29.9% smokers; 64.3% non-smokers). For smokers, adhering to the ban, perceiving staff to be supportive, and reporting that the nicotine-replacement therapy reduced cravings to smoke were associated with a more positive view towards the smoke-free policy. These findings support the importance of patient adherence, mental health nursing staff support, and adequate provision of nicotine-dependence treatment in strengthening smoke-free policy implementation in inpatient psychiatric settings.

Care provision to prevent chronic disease by community mental health clinicians.

BACKGROUND: People with a mental illness have higher prevalence of behavioral risks for chronic disease than the general population. Despite recommendations regarding the provision of preventive care by mental health services, limited research has examined the extent to which such care is provided. PURPOSE: To examine mental health clinician provision of care for preventable chronic disease risks, and whether such care was associated with the availability of practice support strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken of 151 community mental health clinicians in New South Wales, Australia regarding the provision of three elements of preventive care (i.e., assessment, brief advice, and referral/follow-up) for four health risk behaviors (i.e., tobacco smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, harmful alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity). Clinicians reported the availability of 16 strategies to support such care delivery. Data were collected in 2010 and analyzed in 2012-2013. RESULTS: Preventive care provision varied by both care element and risk behavior. Optimal care (each care element provided to at least 80% of clients for all health behaviors) was provided by few clinicians: assessment (8.6%), brief advice (24.5%), and referral/follow-up (9.9%). Less than half of clinicians reported more than four support strategies were available (44.4%). The availability of five or more strategies was associated with increased optimal preventive care. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of preventive care focused on chronic disease prevention in community mental health services is suboptimal. Interventions to increase the routine provision of such care should involve increasing the availability of evidence-based strategies to support care provision.

Clinician assessment, advice and referral for multiple health risk behaviors: prevalence and predictors of delivery by primary health care nurses and allied health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care clinicians have considerable potential to provide preventive care. This study describes their preventive care delivery. METHODS: A survey of 384 community health nurses and allied health clinicians from in New South Wales, Australia was undertaken (2010-11) to examine the assessment of client risk, provision of brief advice and referral/follow-up regarding smoking inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol misuse, and physical inactivity; the existence of preventive care support strategies; and the association between supports and preventive care provision. RESULTS: Preventive care to 80% or more clients was least often provided for referral/follow-up (24.7-45.6% of clinicians for individual risks, and 24.2% for all risks) and most often for assessment (34.4-69.3% of clinicians for individual risks, and 24.4% for all risks). Approximately 75% reported having 9 or fewer of 17 supports. Provision of care was associated with: availability of a paper screening tool; training; GP referral letter; and number of supports. CONCLUSION: The delivery of preventive care was limited, and varied according to type of care and risk. Supports were variably associated with elements of preventive care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is required to increase routine preventive care delivery and the availability of supports.

Increasing preventive care by primary care nursing and allied health clinicians: a non-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although primary care nurse and allied health clinician consultations represent key opportunities for the provision of preventive care, it is provided suboptimally. PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a practice change intervention in increasing primary care nursing and allied health clinician provision of preventive care for four health risks. DESIGN: Two-group (intervention versus control), non-randomized controlled study assessing the effectiveness of the intervention in increasing clinician provision of preventive care. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected clients from 17 primary healthcare facilities participated in telephone surveys that assessed their receipt of preventive care prior to (September 2009-2010, n=876) and following intervention (October 2011-2012, n=1,113). INTERVENTION: The intervention involved local leadership and consensus processes, electronic medical record system modification, educational meetings and outreach, provision of practice change resources and support, and performance monitoring and feedback. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was differential change in client-reported receipt of three elements of preventive care (assessment, brief advice, referral/follow-up) for each of four behavioral risks individually (smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) and combined. Logistic regression assessed intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: Analyses conducted in 2013 indicated significant improvements in preventive care delivery in the intervention compared to the control group from baseline to follow-up for assessment of fruit and vegetable consumption (+23.8% vs -1.5%); physical activity (+11.1% vs -0.3%); all four risks combined (+16.9% vs -1.0%) and for brief advice for inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption (+19.3% vs -2.0%); alcohol overconsumption (+14.5% vs -8.9%); and all four risks combined (+14.3% vs +2.2%). The intervention was ineffective in increasing the provision of the remaining forms of preventive care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention's impact on the provision of preventive care varied by both care element and risk type. Further intervention is required to increase the consistent provision of preventive care, particularly referral/follow-up.