"It's hard to say anything definitive about what severity really is": lay conceptualisations of severity in a healthcare context.

BACKGROUND: Demand for healthcare outweighs available resources, making priority setting a critical issue. 'Severity' is a priority-setting criterion in many healthcare systems, including in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. However, there is a lack of consensus on what severity means in a healthcare context, both in the academic literature and in policy. Further, while public preference elicitation studies demonstrate support for severity as a relevant concern in priority setting, there is a paucity of research on what severity is taken to mean for the public. The purpose of this study is to explore how severity is conceptualised by members of the general public. METHODS: Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from February to July 2021 with members of the Norwegian adult public (n = 59). These were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis, incorporating inductive and deductive elements. RESULTS: Through the analysis we arrived at three interrelated main themes. Severity as subjective experience included perceptions of severity as inherently subjective and personal. Emphasis was on the individual's unique insight into their illness, and there was a concern that the assessment of severity should be fair for the individual. The second theme, Severity as objective fact, included perceptions of severity as something determined by objective criteria, so that a severe condition is equally severe for any person. Here, there was a concern for determining severity fairly within and across patient groups. The third theme, Severity as situation dependent, included perceptions of severity centered on second-order effects of illness. These included effects on the individual, such as their ability to work and enjoy their hobbies, effects on those surrounding the patient, such as next of kin, and effects at a societal level, such as production loss. We also identified a concern for determining severity fairly at a societal level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that severity is a polyvalent notion with different meanings attached to it. There seems to be a dissonance between lay conceptualisations of severity and policy operationalisations of the term, which may lead to miscommunications between members of the public and policymakers.

Something Happened with the Way We Work: Evaluating the Implementation of the Reducing Coercion in Norway (ReCoN) Intervention in Primary Mental Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Current policies to reduce the use of involuntary admissions are largely oriented towards specialist mental health care and have had limited success. We co-created, with stakeholders in five Norwegian municipalities, the 'Reducing Coercion in Norway' (ReCoN) intervention that aims to reduce involuntary admissions by improving the way in which primary mental health services work and collaborate. The intervention was implemented in five municipalities and is being tested in a cluster randomized control trial, which is yet to be published. The present study evaluates the implementation process in the five intervention municipalities. To assess how the intervention was executed, we report on how its different elements were implemented, and what helped or hindered implementation. METHODS: We assessed the process using qualitative methods. Data included detailed notes from quarterly progress interviews with (i) intervention coordinators and representatives from (ii) user organisations and (iii) carer organisations. Finally, an end-of-intervention evaluation seminar included participants from across the sites. RESULTS: The majority of intervention actions were implemented. We believe this was enabled by the co-creating process, which ensured ownership and a good fit for the local setting. The analysis of facilitators and barriers showed a high degree of interconnectedness between different parts of the intervention so that success (or lack thereof) in one area affected the success in others. Future implementation should pay attention to enhanced planning and training, clarify the role and contribution of service user and carer involvement, and pay close attention to the need for implementation support and whether this should be external or internal to services. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement a complex intervention designed to reduce the use of involuntary admissions in general support services, such as the Norwegian primary mental health services. This could have implications for national and international policy aimed at reducing the use of involuntary care.

Medication-Free Treatment in Mental Health Care How Does It Differ from Traditional Treatment?

Background: Norwegian authorities have implemented treatment units devoted to medication-free mental health treatment nationwide to improve people's freedom of choice. This article examines how medication-free treatment differs from treatment as usual across central dimensions. Methods: The design was mixed methods including questionnaire data on patients from a medication-free unit and two comparison units (n 59 + 124), as well as interviews with patients (n 5) and staff (n 8) in the medication-free unit. Results: Medication-free treatment involved less reliance on medications and more extensive psychosocial treatment that involved a culture of openness, expression of feelings, and focus on individual responsibility and intensive work. The overall extent of patient influence for medication-free treatment compared with standard treatment was not substantially different to standard treatment but varied on different themes. Patients in medication-free treatment had greater freedom to reduce or not use medication. Medication-free treatment was experienced as more demanding. For patients, this could be connected to a stronger sense of purpose and was experienced as helpful but could also be experienced as a type of pressure and lack of understanding. Patients in medication-free treatment reported greater satisfaction with the treatment, which may be linked to a richer psychosocial treatment package that focuses on patient participation and freedom from pressure to use medication. Conclusion: The findings provide insights into how a medication-free treatment service might work and demonstrate its worth as a viable alternative for people who are not comfortable with the current medication focus of mental health care. Patients react differently to increased demands and clinicians should be reflexive of the dimensions of individualism-relationism in medication-free treatment services. This knowledge can be used to further develop and improve both medication-free treatment and standard treatment regarding shared decision-making. Trial Registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03499080) on 17 April 2018.

Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

OBJECTIVES: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry-based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. METHODS: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi-randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short- and long-term trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

The relationship between area levels of involuntary psychiatric care and patient outcomes: a longitudinal national register study from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Mental health legislation permits involuntary care of patients with severe mental disorders who meet set legal criteria. The Norwegian Mental Health Act assumes this will improve health and reduce risk of deterioration and death. Professionals have warned against potentially adverse effects of recent initiatives to heighten involuntary care thresholds, but no studies have investigated whether high thresholds have adverse effects. AIM: To test the hypothesis that areas with lower levels of involuntary care show higher levels of morbidity and mortality in their severe mental disorder populations over time compared to areas with higher levels. Data availability precluded analyses of the effect on health and safety of others. METHODS: Using national data, we calculated standardized (by age, sex, and urbanicity) involuntary care ratios across Community Mental Health Center areas in Norway. For patients diagnosed with severe mental disorders (ICD10 F20-31), we tested whether lower area ratios in 2015 was associated with 1) case fatality over four years, 2) an increase in inpatient days, and 3) time to first episode of involuntary care over the following two years. We also assessed 4) whether area ratios in 2015 predicted an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with F20-31 in the subsequent two years and whether 5) standardized involuntary care area ratios in 2014-2017 predicted an increase in the standardized suicide ratios in 2014-2018. Analyses were prespecified (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04655287). RESULTS: We found no adverse effects on patients' health in areas with lower standardized involuntary care ratios. The standardization variables age, sex, and urbanicity explained 70.5% of the variance in raw rates of involuntary care. CONCLUSIONS: Lower standardized involuntary care ratios are not associated with adverse effects for patients with severe mental disorders in Norway. This finding merits further research of the way involuntary care works.

Geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation - ethical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care restricts patients' liberty and is experienced as harmful by many. Such hospitalisations continue to be used due to their assumed benefit, despite limited scientific evidence. Observed geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation raises concern that rates are higher and lower than necessary in some areas. METHODS/DISCUSSION: We present a specific normative ethical analysis of how geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation challenges four core principles of health care ethics. We then consider the theoretical possibility of a "right", or appropriate, level of compulsory hospitalisation, as a general norm for assessing the moral divergence, i.e., too little, or too much. Finally, we discuss implications of our analysis and how they can inform the future direction of mental health services.

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders' opinions.

Background: Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT. Aim: This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT. Methods: We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar. Results: We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication. Conclusion: Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

The ReCoN intervention: a co-created comprehensive intervention for primary mental health care aiming to prevent involuntary admissions.

BACKGROUND: Reducing involuntary psychiatric admissions is a global concern. In Norway, the rate of involuntary admissions was 199 per 100,000 people 16 years and older in 2020. Individuals' paths towards involuntary psychiatric admissions usually unfold when they live in the community and referrals to such admissions are often initiated by primary health care professionals. Interventions at the primary health care level can therefore have the potential to prevent such admissions. Interventions developed specifically for this care level are, however, lacking. To enhance the quality and development of services in a way that meets stakeholders' needs and facilitates implementation to practice, involving both persons with lived experience and service providers in developing such interventions is requested. AIM: To develop a comprehensive intervention for primary mental health care aiming to prevent involuntary admissions of adults. METHODS: This study had an action research approach with a participatory research design. Dialogue conferences with multiple stakeholders in five Norwegian municipalities, inductive thematic analysis of data material from the conferences, and a series of feedback meetings were conducted. RESULTS: The co-creation process resulted in the development of the ReCoN (Reducing Coercion in Norway) intervention. This is a comprehensive intervention that includes six strategy areas: [1] Management, [2] Involving Persons with Lived Experience and Family Carers, [3] Competence Development, [4] Collaboration across Primary and Specialist Care Levels, [5] Collaboration within the Primary Care Level, and [6] Tailoring Individual Services. Each strategy area has two to four action areas with specified measures that constitute the practical actions or tasks that are believed to collectively impact the need for involuntary admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The ReCoN intervention has the potential for application to both national and international mental health services. The co-creation process with the full range of stakeholders ensures face validity, acceptability, and relevance. The effectiveness of the ReCoN intervention is currently being tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Given positive effects, the ReCoN intervention may impact individuals with a severe mental illness at risk of involuntary admissions, as more people may experience empowerment and autonomy instead of coercion in their recovery process.

Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs). AIMS: The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs. METHOD: This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged ≥18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform. RESULTS: CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform. CONCLUSIONS: The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.

Service Characteristics and Geographical Variation in Compulsory Hospitalisation: An Exploratory Random Effects Within-Between Analysis of Norwegian Municipalities, 2015-2018.

Background: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental healthcare is contested. For ethical and legal reasons, it should only be used as a last resort. Geographical variation could indicate that some areas employ compulsory hospitalisation more frequently than is strictly necessary. Explaining variation in compulsory hospitalisation might contribute to reducing overuse, but research on associations with service characteristics remains patchy. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the associations between the levels of compulsory hospitalisation and the characteristics of primary mental health services in Norway between 2015 and 2018 and the amount of variance explained by groups of explanatory variables. Methods: We applied random-effects within-between Poisson regression of 461 municipalities/city districts, nested within 72 community mental health centre catchment areas (N = 1,828 municipality-years). Results: More general practitioners, mental health nurses, and the total labour-years in municipal mental health and addiction services per population are associated with lower levels of compulsory hospitalisations within the same areas, as measured by both persons (inpatients) and events (hospitalisations). Areas that, on average, have more general practitioners and public housing per population have lower levels of compulsory hospitalisation, while higher levels of compulsory hospitalisation are seen in areas with a longer history of supported employment and the systematic gathering of service users' experiences. In combination, all the variables, including the control variables, could account for 39-40% of the variation, with 5-6% related to municipal health services. Conclusion: Strengthening primary mental healthcare by increasing the number of general practitioners and mental health workers can reduce the use of compulsory hospitalisation and improve the quality of health services.

Between No Help and Coercion: Toward Referral to Involuntary Psychiatric Admission. A Qualitative Interview Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.

Objective: Paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission mainly unfold in the contexts where people live their everyday lives. Modern health services are organized such that primary health care services are often those who provide long-term follow-up for people with severe mental illness and who serve as gatekeepers to involuntary admissions at the secondary care level. However, most efforts to reduce involuntary admissions have been directed toward the secondary health care level; interventions at the primary care level are sparse. To adapt effective measures for this care level, a better understanding is needed of the contextual characteristics surrounding individuals' paths ending in referrals for involuntary admission. This study aims to explore what characterizes such paths, based on the personal experiences of multiple stakeholders. Method: One hundred and three participants from five Norwegian municipalities participated in individual interviews or focus groups. They included professionals from the primary and secondary care levels and people with lived experience of severe mental illness and/or involuntary admission and carers. Data was subject to constant comparison in inductive analysis inspired by grounded theory. Results: Four main categories emerged from the analysis: deterioration and deprivation, difficult to get help, insufficient adaptation of services provided, and when things get acute. Combined, these illustrate typical characteristics of paths toward referral for involuntary psychiatric admission. Conclusion: The results demonstrate the complexity of individuals' paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission and underline the importance of comprehensive and individualized approaches to reduce involuntary admissions. Furthermore, the findings indicate a gap in current practice between the policies to reduce involuntary admissions and the provision of, access to, and adaptation of less restrictive services for adults with severe mental illness at risk of involuntary admissions. To address this gap, further research is needed on effective measures and interventions at the primary care level.

The Introduction of Medication-Free Mental Health Services in Norway: An Analysis of the Framing and Impact of Arguments From Different Standpoints.

Introduction: Debates about coercive practices have challenged a traditional biomedical hegemony in mental health care. The perspectives of service user organizations have gained considerable ground, such as in the development of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Such changes are often contested, and might in practice be a result of (implicit) negotiation between stakeholders with different discursive positions. To improve understanding of such processes, and how discursive positions may manifest and interact, we analyzed texts published over a 10 year period related to the introduction of medication-free inpatient services in Norway. Methods: We conducted qualitative analyses of 36 policy documents related to the introduction of medication-free services and 75 opinion pieces from a subsequent debate. We examined discursive practices in these texts as expressions of what is perceived as legitimate knowledge upon which to base mental health care from the standpoints of government, user organizations and representatives of the psychiatric profession. We paid particular attention to how standpoints were framed in different discourse surrounding mental health care, and how these interacted and changed during the study period (2008-2018). Results: The analysis shows how elements from the discourse promoted by service user organizations-most notably the legitimacy of personal experiences as a legitimate source of knowledge-entered the mainstream by being incorporated into public policy. Strong reactions to this shift, firmly based in biomedical discourse, endorsed evidence-based medicine as the authoritative source of knowledge to ensure quality care, although accepting patient involvement. Involuntary medication, and how best to help those with non-response to antipsychotic medication represented a point at which discursive positions seemed irreconcilable. Conclusion: The relative authorities of different sources of knowledge remain an area of contention, and especially in determining how best to help patients who do not benefit from antipsychotics. Future non-inferiority trials of medication-free services may go some way to break this discursive deadlock.

Why Service Users Choose Medication-Free Psychiatric Treatment: A Mixed-Method Study of User Accounts.

PURPOSE: Medication has been a central part of treatment for severe mental disorders in Western medicine since the 1950s. In 2015, Norwegian Health Authorities decided that Norwegian health regions must have treatment units devoted to medication-free mental health treatment to enhance service users' freedom of choice. The need for these units has been controversial. The aim of this study was to examine why service users choose medication-free services. This article examines what purpose these units serve in terms of the users' reasons for choosing this service, what is important for them to receive during the treatment, and what factors lay behind their concerns in terms of medication-related views and experiences. METHODS: Questionnaires were answered by 46 participants and 5 participants were interviewed in a mixed-method design integrated with a concurrent triangulation strategy applying thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Negative effects of medications and unavailable alternatives to medication in ordinary health care were important reasons for wanting medication-free treatment. Medication use may conflict with personal values, attitudes, and beliefs. CONCLUSION: This study broadens the understanding of why the demand for separate medication-free units has arisen. The findings may contribute to making medication-free treatment an option in mental health care in general. To this end, clinicians are advised to communicate all treatment alternatives to service users and to be mindful of the effect of power imbalances in their interactions with them.

Measuring the level of compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care: The performance of different measures across areas and over time.

OBJECTIVE: A variety of measures are used for reporting levels of compulsory psychiatric hospitalisation. This complicates comparisons between studies and makes it hard to establish the extent of geographic variation. We aimed to investigate how measures based on events, individuals and duration portray geographical variation differently and perform over time, how they correlate and how well they predict future ranked levels of compulsory hospitalisation. METHODS: Small-area analysis, correlation analysis and linear regressions of data from a Norwegian health registry containing whole population data from 2014 to 2018. RESULTS: The average compulsory hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitant was 5.6 times higher in the highest area, compared to the lowest, while the difference for the compulsory inpatient rate was 3.2. Population rates based on inpatients correlate strongly with rates of compulsory hospitalisations (r = 0.88) and duration (r = 0.78). 68%-81% of ranked compulsory hospitalisation rates could be explained by each area's rank the previous year. CONCLUSION: There are stable differences in service delivery between catchment areas in Norway. In future research, multiple measures of the level of compulsory hospitalisation should ideally be included when investigating geographical variation. It is important that researchers describe accurately the measure upon which their results are based.

Cost and quality-of-life impacts of community treatment orders (CTOs) for patients with psychosis: economic evaluation of the OCTET trial.

PURPOSE: Current RCT and meta-analyses have not found any effect of community treatment orders (CTOs) on hospital or social outcomes. Assumed positive impacts of CTOs on quality-of-life outcomes and reduced hospital costs are potentially in conflict with patient autonomy. Therefore, an analysis of the cost and quality-of-life consequences of CTOs was conducted within the OCTET trial. METHODS: The economic evaluation was carried out comparing patients (n = 328) with psychosis discharged from involuntary hospitalisation either to treatment under a CTO (CTO group) or voluntary status via Section 17 leave (non-CTO group) from the health and social care and broader societal perspectives (including cost implication of informal family care and legal procedures). Differences in costs and outcomes defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on the EQ-5D-3L or capability-weighted life years (CWLYs) based on the OxCAP-MH were assessed over 12 months (£, 2012/13 tariffs). RESULTS: Mean total costs from the health and social care perspective [CTO: £35,595 (SD: £44,886); non-CTO: £36,003 (SD: £41,406)] were not statistically significantly different in any of the analyses or cost categories. Mental health hospitalisation costs contributed to more than 85% of annual health and social care costs. Informal care costs were significantly higher in the CTO group, in which there were also significantly more manager hearings and tribunals. No difference in health-related quality of life or capability wellbeing was found between the groups. CONCLUSION: CTOs are unlikely to be cost-effective. No evidence supports the hypothesis that CTOs decrease hospitalisation costs or improve quality of life. Future decisions should consider impacts outside the healthcare sector such as higher informal care costs and legal procedure burden of CTOs.

Professionals' perspectives on factors within primary mental health services that can affect pathways to involuntary psychiatric admissions.

BACKGROUND: Reducing involuntary psychiatric admissions has been on the international human rights and health policy agenda for years. Despite the last decades' shift towards more services for adults with severe mental illness being provided in the community, most research on how to reduce involuntary admissions has been conducted at secondary health care level. Research from the primary health care level is largely lacking. The aim of this study was to explore mental health professionals' experiences with factors within primary mental health services that might increase the risk of involuntary psychiatric admissions of adults, and their views on how such admissions might be avoided. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with thirty-two mental health professionals from five Norwegian municipalities. Data were analysed according to the Systematic Text Condensation method. RESULTS: Within primary mental health care professionals experienced that a number of factors could increase the risk of involuntary psychiatric admissions. Insufficient time and flexibility in long-term follow-up, limited resources, none or arbitrary use of crisis plans, lack of tailored housing, few employment opportunities, little diversity in activities offered, limited opportunities for voluntary admissions, inadequate collaboration between services and lack of competence were some of the factors mentioned to increase the risk of involuntary psychiatric admissions. Several suggestions on how involuntary psychiatric admissions might be avoided were put forward. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health professionals within primary mental health care experienced that their services might play an active part in preventing the use of involuntary psychiatric admissions, suggesting potential to facilitate a reduction by intervening at this service level. Health authorities' incentives to reduce involuntary psychiatric admissions should to a greater extent incorporate the primary health care level. Further research is needed on effective interventions and comprehensive models adapted for this care level.

Is health literacy of family carers associated with carer burden, quality of life, and time spent on informal care for older persons living with dementia?

INTRODUCTION: Family carers are cornerstones in the care of older people living with dementia. Family carers report extensive carer burden, reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and extensive time spent on informal care (Time). Health literacy (HL) is a concept associated with people's ability to access health services, and navigate the healthcare system. This study's aim was to investigate HL among family carers, and investigate the associations between HL and carer burden, HRQoL, and Time spent on informal care. METHOD: We designed a self-administered survey comprising validated instruments, including the Health Literacy Scale (HLS-N-Q12) to measure HL, Relative Stress Scale (RSS) to measure carer burden, the EQ-5D-5L instrument to measure HRQoL, and some modified questions from the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) questionnaire to measure time spent on informal care (Time). Descriptive analysis in addition to bivariate and multiple linear regressions were undertaken. In multiple linear regression analysis, we used HL as the independent variable to predict the outcomes (carer burden, HRQoL, Time). Analyses were adjusted for the effects of explanatory independent variables: age, gender, education levels, urban residency, having worked as health personnel, caring for someone with severe/mild dementia, and being born abroad. FINDINGS: In a non-probability sample of 188 family carers from across Norway, most of them female and over the age of 60, we found high levels of HL. In the bivariate analysis, carer burden and HRQoL (EQvalue) showed significant associations with HL. In the multiple regression analyses, HL was statistically significantly associated with carer burden (B = -0.18 CI:-0.33,-0.02 p = 0.02), HRQoL (EQvalue: B = 0.003 with 95% CI: 0.001, 0.006 p = 0.04), and Time (B = -0.03 with 95% CI: -0.06, 0.000, p = 0.046), after adjusting for the effect of independent variables. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to investigate the associations between HL and different outcomes for family carers of older people living with dementia. Additional research into the associations identified here is needed to further develop our understanding of how to support family carers in their roles. Targeted support that increases family carers' HL may have potential to enhance their ability to provide sustainable care over time.

Collaborative care for mental health: a qualitative study of the experiences of patients and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Health policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.

Family carers' involvement strategies in response to sub-optimal health services to older adults living with dementia - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While dementia policy strategies emphasize the importance of partnerships between families and formal carers to provide tailored care and effectively allocate community resources, family carers often feel left out or excluded. Poor communication has been identified as one reason for the lack of good partnerships. Few studies have investigated how family carers seek to involve themselves when they experience sub-optimal services, and how their strategies may depend on different considerations and personal abilities. METHODS: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 family carers to explore their experiences with, perspectives on, contributions to, and interactions with healthcare services provided to older adults living with dementia. To capture nuances and variations, a semi-structured interview guide was used. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A four-step analysis of the transcripts was conducted, informed by hermeneutic and phenomenological methodology. RESULTS: Two main involvement strategies were identified: 1) being "the hub in the wheel" and 2) getting the wheel rolling. The first strategy was used to support and complement health services, while the second was used to add momentum and leverage to arguments or processes. The two main strategies were used differently among participants, in part due to differences in personal resources and the ability to utilize these, but also in light of family carers' weighing conflicting concerns and perceived costs and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness and acknowledgment of family carers' strategies, personal resources, and considerations may help policymakers and healthcare personnel when they build or maintain good partnerships together with family carers. A better understanding of family carers' own perspectives on carer involvement is a necessary precursor to developing good care partnerships.

Applying the triple bottom line of sustainability to healthcare research-a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: The triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability is an important emerging conceptual framework which considers the combined economic, environmental and social impacts of an activity. Despite its clear relevance to the healthcare context, it has not yet been applied to the evaluation of a healthcare intervention. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether doing so is feasible and useful. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of a 12-month randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community based mental health care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic psychotic illnesses (n = 333). INTERVENTION(S): Community treatment orders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Financial and environmental (CO2 equivalent) costs of care, obtained from healthcare service use data, were calculated using publicly available standard costs; social sustainability was assessed using standardized social outcome measures included in the trial data. RESULTS: Standardized costing and CO2e emissions figures were successfully obtained from publicly available data, and social outcomes were available directly from the trial data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that TBL assessment can be retrospectively calculated for a healthcare intervention to provide a more complete assessment of the true costs of an intervention. A basic methodology was advanced to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, although considerable further conceptual and methodological work is needed to develop a generalizable methodology that enables prospective inclusion of a TBL assessment in healthcare evaluations. If achieved, this would represent a significant milestone in the development of more sustainable healthcare services. If increasing the sustainability of healthcare is a priority, then the TBL approach may be a promising way forward.