Implementation of national guidance for self-harm among general practice nurses: a qualitative exploration using the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) and the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Patients who self-harm may consult with primary care nurses, who have a safeguarding responsibility to recognise and respond to self-harm. However, the responses of nursing staff to self-harm are poorly understood, and opportunities to identify self-harm and signpost towards treatment may be missed. It is unclear how to support nursing staff to implement national guidelines. AIMS: Among primary care nursing staff to: [1] Examine reported barriers and enablers to nurses' use of, and adherence to, national guidance for self-harm; and [2] Recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of the NICE guidelines. METHODS: Twelve telephone interviews partly structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) were conducted with primary care nurses in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used as an analytical framework, while the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify exemplar behaviour change techniques and intervention functions. RESULTS: Nursing staff identified a need to learn more about risk factors (knowledge), and strategies to initiate sensitive conversations about self-harm (cognitive and interpersonal skills) to support their professional competencies (professional role and identity). Prompts may support recall of the guidance and support a patient centred approach to self-harm within practices (memory, attention, and decision making). GPs, and other practice nurses offer guidance and support (social influences), which helps nurses to navigate referrals and restricted appointment lengths (environmental context and influences). CONCLUSIONS: Two converging sets of themes relating to information delivery and resource availability need to be targeted. Nine groups of behaviour change techniques, and five intervention functions offer candidate solutions for future intervention design. Key targets for change include practical training to redress conversational skill gaps about self-harm, the integration of national guidance with local resources and practice-level protocols to support decision-making, and creating opportunities for team-based mentoring.

Does refining an intervention based on participant feedback increase acceptability? An experimental approach.

BACKGROUND: Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested. PURPOSE: The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions.

Exploring the acceptability of a brief online theory-based intervention to prevent and reduce self-harm: a theoretically framed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The volitional help sheet for self-harm equips people with the means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Improving acceptability may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was developed to guide the assessment of intervention acceptability, but to date, no studies have applied the TFA to understand acceptability of interventions for self-harm. AIMS: To apply the TFA to (a) explore people's experiences of a brief intervention to reduce repeat self-harm; and (b) understand the most prominent aspects of intervention acceptability, to make recommendations for intervention refinements and successful implementation. METHOD: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had previously self-harmed. The TFA informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the TFA. RESULTS: Four TFA domains were identified that were associated with acceptability of the volitional help sheet for self-harm: affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness. People were generally positive about using the volitional help sheet (affective attitude), understood the volitional help sheet and how it worked (intervention coherence), highlighted engagement as a motivating factor in using the volitional help sheet (perceived burden) and described how the volitional help sheet could be implemented by healthcare professionals (perceived effectiveness). CONCLUSIONS: Further modifications could still be made, but it is hoped that this intervention provides a useful tool for individuals to construct their own personalised implementation intentions, and as part of longer-term support for preventing self-harm as delivered by healthcare professionals.

Examining drivers of self-harm guideline implementation by general practitioners: A qualitative analysis using the theoretical domains framework.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) examine barriers and enablers to General Practitioners' (GP) use of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for self-harm and (2) recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of them in primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Twenty-one telephone interviews, semi-structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B), were conducted with GPs in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was employed as an analytical framework. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs), intervention functions and exemplar interventions were identified. RESULTS: GPs valued additional knowledge about self-harm risk assessments (knowledge), and communication skills were considered to be fundamental to high-pressure consultations (cognitive and interpersonal skills). GPs did not engage with the guidelines due to concerns that they would be a distraction from patient cues about risk during consultations (memory, attention and decision processes), and perceptions that following the guidance is difficult due to time pressures and lack of access to mental health referrals (environmental context and resources). Clinical uncertainty surrounding longer term care for people that self-harm, particularly patients that are waiting for or cannot access a referral, drives GPs to rely on their professional judgement over the guidance (beliefs about capabilities). CONCLUSIONS: Three key drivers related to information and skill needs, guideline engagement and clinical uncertainty need to be addressed to support GPs to be able to assess and manage self-harm. Five intervention functions and ten BCT groups were identified as potential avenues for intervention design.

"We want to live a little longer and our family want[s] us around": A summative content analysis of adherence to COVID-19-related guidelines using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: Public adherence to COVID-19-related government guidance varied during the initial lockdown in the UK, but the determinants of public adherence to such guidance are unclear. We capture spontaneous reflections on adherence to UK government guidance from a representative UK sample, and use the TDF to identify key determinants of COVID-related behaviours. DESIGN: The design was cross-sectional. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected from a large sample of UK adults (N = 2,252) via an online questionnaire as part of a wider survey about the UK public's responses to the government's COVID-19-related guidance. Summative content analysis was used to identify key guideline terms in the data, followed by latent analysis to interpret the underlying meanings behind the terms using the TDF as an analytical framework. RESULTS: Six TDF domains were identified in the data: Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Social Influences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Emotion; and Knowledge. Although the samples were motivated and capable of adhering, limitations in their environments, resources, and social support mechanisms restricted behaviour. Self-reported adherence was sensitive to positive and negative beliefs about the effectiveness of the measures, in addition to interpretations of the terms 'essential' and 'necessary' in the guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive structural obstacles to adherence, the majority of the British public were able to follow government COVID-19-related instructions, provided they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non-adherence.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lacks sentience and can only be spread through human behaviour. Government instructions to the general public include: (a) limiting time spent outside the home, (b) staying more than 1 m away from people outside the household at all times, and (c) maintaining hand hygiene. Current evidence suggests high rates of adherence to such instructions, but interventions to sustain adherence to government instructions in the long term can only be developed if we know why people do or do not adhere to them. The aims were to assess levels of public adherence to government instructions to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but more importantly to gauge why people were or were not adhering to instructions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2252 adults who were representative of the UK population. Data were analysed descriptively, and using one-sample t-tests, within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The sample reported mostly adhering to UK government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with 5% or fewer people reporting active resistance to instructions. People generally reported high levels of capability, opportunity and motivation to follow the instructions, but perceived relatively few physical and social opportunities. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that better adherence was associated with older age, being a woman, having a white ethnic background, and with perceiving greater levels of capabilities, opportunities and motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeted at people with black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, men and younger people that focus on increasing capabilities, providing greater opportunities and boosting motivations are needed to support continued adherence to government instructions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Further research is required to track changes in people's capabilities, opportunities, motivations and behaviours in response to the ongoing emergency, any changes in government instructions, and to adapt the present procedures to other emergency situations.

What challenges do UK adults face when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions? Cross-sectional survey in a representative sample.

Adherence to government COVID-19-related instructions is reported to be high, but the psychosocial impacts of measures such as self-isolation and physical distancing could undermine long-term adherence to containment measures. The first step in designing interventions to mitigate the impacts of adhering to COVID-19-related instructions is to identify what are the most prevalent challenges and what characterises the people facing them. A cross-sectional survey was administered to a representative sample of the UK population (N = 2252), of whom n = 2139 (94.9%) reported adhering to the UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, and were included in the final analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Of the people who reported adhering to UK government's COVID-19-related instructions, 80.3% reported experiencing challenges. Adults aged 55 years or over (OR = 1.939, 95%CI 1.331-2.825) and men (OR = 0.489, 95%CI 0.393-0.608) were least likely to report challenges. Adjusting to changes in daily routine (reported by 48.7% of the sample), mental health (reported by 41.4% of the sample) and physical health (reported by 31.5% of the sample) were the most prevalent challenges. For the first time, the present study quantifies the extent to which people experienced challenges when adhering to government COVID-19-related instructions. Few people reported experiencing no challenges when adhering to COVID-19-related instructions. Interventions to address the effects of changes in daily routine, mental health challenges, and physical health challenges should be prioritised, with a focus on key subgroups including women, younger adults, and people without care commitments.

Healthcare professionals' implementation of national guidelines with patients who self-harm.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines for the short-term management of self-harm are aimed at healthcare professionals who may be involved in the care of people who have self-harmed. However, evidence from small-scale studies globally suggest there is a lack of awareness of such guidelines among some groups of healthcare professionals. For the first time in a large representative sample of patient-facing healthcare professionals, we aimed to identify: (a) which healthcare professionals are aware of guidelines for the management of self-harm; (b) the perceived availability of training; (c) the use of risk screening tools; and (d) the extent to which healthcare professionals implement guidelines for the management of self-harm. METHODS: 1020 UK healthcare professionals completed a cross-sectional survey online. RESULTS: 85.6% (873/1020) of the sample had heard of the national guidelines, but only 24.3% (248/1020) knew "a fair amount" or more about them. Of the respondents who had previously encountered a patient who had self-harmed or was at risk of repeat self-harm, the guidelines were implemented in fewer than 50% (M = 43.89%, SD = 38.79) of encounters. 31% (312/1020) of the sample had received training in managing self-harm and, contrary to guidelines, 2.25% (23/1020) of the sample had used self-harm risk screening tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a need to improve knowledge of self-harm management guidelines, and identifies professional groups where awareness and knowledge is currently low. Further work is required to develop interventions to change healthcare professional practice with respect to the implementation of self-harm management guidelines.