Evaluation of a mental health screening tool using cross-sectional surveys in a workplace setting.

OBJECTIVES: The Brief Health Check (BHC) is a health screener used by the Get Healthy at Work programme, which identifies workers with chronic disease risk and provides them with advice and referrals to support services. The BHC was revised to include mental health to provide a holistic approach to workplace health. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and appropriateness of the revised BHC by comparing the results around psychological distress and future risk with previous research, and a participant feedback survey. METHOD: Data collection took place between October 2018 and May 2019. The study used data that were collected as part of programme delivery, as well as a participant feedback survey that was administered after the health check was completed. RESULTS: BHCs were completed by n=912 workers, out of which, n=238 completed the feedback survey. The mean Distress Questionnaire 5 score was 10.5, and 10% of participants met the threshold for 'high' future risk. The feedback survey revealed that the majority of participants found the mental health advice to be useful (76%), agreed with their mental health distress and risk ratings (92%-94%) and most intended on using the referred services (62%-68%). CONCLUSION: The findings around mental health risk were comparable to previous findings in employed samples. The inclusion of mental health assessments, advice and referral pathways into the BHC was found to be acceptable and the subsequent referrals were appropriate, indicating that this approach could be scaled up and implemented to help address worker's mental ill health.

Improving the methods for patient-reported experience measures in palliative care: findings from a cognitive interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are questionnaires that ask patients about their experience of healthcare to inform service improvements. It is unclear how palliative care patients manage the cognitive demands of completing PREMs, or how this can best be supported. This study aimed to explore cognitive operations among people with palliative care needs when completing a PREM focused on the care domains known to be important to this patient population in order to inform future administration of questionnaires for this purpose. METHODS: A qualitative approach was taken, using cognitive interviews. Participants were people receiving specialist palliative care with stable disease who were not bedbound. Interviews used 'think aloud' and verbal probes to explore the cognitive operations of comprehension, recall, judgement and response to a 33-item PREM, drafted using a standard process employed by the New South Wales Bureau of Health Information. Analysis proceeded first within- and then cross-cases to explore patterns. RESULTS: Fifteen people participated, all of whom had cancer except one with motor neuron disease. Six discussed inpatient care, and nine community care. Participants encountered challenges with all four cognitive operations. Many participants were unfamiliar with end-of-life care concepts like declining treatment and advance care planning. Participants often struggled to remember, answered hypothetically, or digressed beyond the focal setting. Few participants used the mid-point on a 3-point scale. However, all participants could complete two open-ended items on care aspects they regarded as 'best' or 'most needs improving'. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care patients find PREMs challenging to complete and require supports to improve the quality and interpretability of data. Pending further research, tentative suggestions are made for PREM design and administration for this patient population.