ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from traditional face-to-face care provision towards delivering mental health care remotely through telecommunications, often referred to as telemental health care. However, the manner and extent of telemental health implementation have varied considerably across settings and areas, and substantial barriers are encountered. There is, therefore, a need to identify what works best for service users and staff and establish the key mechanisms for efficient integration into routine care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify investigations of pre-planned strategies reported in the literature intended to achieve or improve effective and sustained implementation of telemental health approaches (including video calls, telephone calls, text messaging platforms or a combination of any of these approaches with face-to-face care), and to evaluate how different strategies influence implementation outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with five databases searched for any relevant literature published between January 2010 and July 2021. Studies were eligible if they took place in specialist mental health services and focused on pre-planned strategies to achieve or improve the delivery of mental health care through remote communication between mental health professionals or between mental health professionals and service users, family members, unpaid carers, or peer supporters. All included studies were quality-assessed. Data were synthesised using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of implementation strategies and the taxonomy of implementation outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria from a total of 14,294 records of which 338 were assessed at full text. All ERIC implementation strategies were used by at least one study, the most commonly reported being 'Train and educate stakeholders'. All studies reported using a combination of several implementation strategies, with the mean number of strategies used per study of 3.5 (range 2-6), many of which were reported to result in an improvement in implementation over time. Few studies specifically investigated a single implementation strategy and its associated outcomes, making conclusions regarding the most beneficial strategy difficult to draw. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of implementation strategies appears to be a helpful method of supporting the implementation of telemental health. Further research is needed to test the impact of specific implementation strategies on implementation outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Humans , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mental Health , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
Objective: Adults living with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severe mental illness (SMI) disproportionally experience premature mortality and health inequality. Despite this, there is a limited evidence-base and evaluation of non-pharmacological integrated interventions that may contribute to improved patient experience and outcomes. To improve our understanding of how to optimise integrated care for this group, this review evaluates the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of non-pharmacological integrated interventions for adults with SMI and T2D. Methods: Studies from nine electronic databases were searched. Of the 6750 papers retrieved, seven papers (five quantitative and two qualitative) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A convergent integrated approach was used to narratively synthesise data into four main themes: effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, integrated care. Results: There is moderate evidence to suggest non-pharmacological integrated interventions may be effective in improving some diabetes-related and psychosocial outcomes. Person-centred integrated interventions that are delivered collaboratively by trained facilitators who exemplify principles of integrated care may be effective in reducing the health-treatment gap. Conclusions: Recommendations from this review can provide guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners, and researchers to inform improvements to non-pharmacological integrated interventions that are evidence-based, theoretically driven, and informed by patient and healthcare professionals' experiences of care.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment and risk management are fundamental processes in the delivery of safe and effective mental health care, yet studies have shown that service users are often not directly involved or are unaware that an assessment has taken place. Shared decision-making in mental health systems is supported by research and advocated in policy. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016050457) aimed to explore the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management from mental health professionals' perspectives. METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and Internurse were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Data were mapped directly into the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a psychological framework that includes 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Thematic synthesis was used to identify potential barriers and enablers within each domain. Data were then matched to the three components of the COM-B model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings of this review indicate that shared decision-making is not a concept commonly used in mental health services when exploring processes of risk assessment and risk management. The key barriers identified were 'power and best interest' (social influences) and 'my professional role and responsibility' (social/professional role and identity). Key enablers were 'therapeutic relationship' (social influences) and 'value collaboration' (reinforcement). The salient barriers, enablers and linked TDF domains matched COM-B components 'opportunity' and 'motivation'. CONCLUSION: The review highlights the need for further empirical research to better understand current practice and mental health professionals' experiences and attitudes towards shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management.
