Xenia and other classics

A creative thesis written for the fiction sequence of the Southern New Hampshire University Master of Fine Arts Creative Writing programMaster ArtsSchool of Arts and Science

Uptake and participation in physical activity referral schemes in the UK: an investigation of patients referred with mental health problems

The study compared outcomes of uptake, attendance, and completion between two patient groups (mental health, n = 134 and physical health, n = 2767) in a physical activity referral scheme in the UK during 2000 to 2003. Despite similar rates for the physical health and mental health groups for initial progression (94% vs. 90%), referral uptake (60% vs. 69%; p < 0.001) and programme completion (22% vs. 34%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the mental health referrals. In conclusion, physical activity referral schemes appear to be less well suited to the needs of the mental health patient. Further research is recommended

The acceptability of asking women to delay removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive to take part in a preconception weight loss programme: a mixed methods study using qualitative and routine data (Plan-it)

Background: Having a body mass index (BMI) which is classified as overweight (BMI ≥ 25) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) increases the risk of complications during pregnancy and labour. Weight-management interventions which target excess gestational weight gain during pregnancy have had limited success. Women who use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) are in contact with services as part of their preparation for conception, creating a potential opportunity to offer a preconception weight-loss intervention. The aims of this mixed methods study were to assess the acceptability and practicability of a weight-loss intervention which asked people to delay LARC removal in order to lose weight before conceiving. Methods: Routine UK NHS data were analysed to identify pathways from LARC removal to pregnancy. Qualitative surveys and advisory group discussions with service providers and LARC users with experience of being overweight were conducted and analysed thematically. Results: Three hundred fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty-five UK women aged 16–48 years between 2009–2018 had at least one LARC-related event (e.g. insertion, removal) and 1.7% of those events were recorded as related to planning a pregnancy. BMI was included in 62% of women’s records, with 54% of those BMI being classified as overweight or obese. Online surveys were completed by 100 healthcare practitioners and 243 LARC users. Stakeholders identified facilitators and barriers associated with the proposed intervention including sensitivities of discussing weight, service-user past experiences, practitioner skills, the setting and ethical implications of the proposed intervention. Conclusions: Although women and service providers recognised potential benefits, a preconception weight-loss intervention asking people to delay LARC removal posed many barriers, due mainly to the acceptability of such an intervention to women and healthcare practitioners. Weight-loss interventions that target the general population, together with a focus on improving public knowledge of preconception health, may be more acceptable than interventions which solely focus on LARC users. Many of the barriers identified, including communication, understanding and beliefs about weight and risk, appointment systems and the limitations of routine datasets also have relevance for any preconception weight-loss intervention. Work to improve routine datasets and reducing communication barriers to discussing weight are priorities. Trial registration: ISRCTN14733020 registered 10.05.2019

Interrogating intervention delivery and participants’ emotional states to improve engagement and implementation: A realist informed multiple case study evaluation of Engager

BACKGROUND: 'Engager' is an innovative 'through-the-gate' complex care intervention for male prison-leavers with common mental health problems. In parallel to the randomised-controlled trial of Engager (Trial registration number: ISRCTN11707331), a set of process evaluation analyses were undertaken. This paper reports on the depth multiple case study analysis part of the process evaluation, exploring how a sub-sample of prison-leavers engaged and responded to the intervention offer of one-to-one support during their re-integration into the community. METHODS: To understand intervention delivery and what response it elicited in individuals, we used a realist-informed qualitative multiple 'case' studies approach. We scrutinised how intervention component delivery lead to outcomes by examining underlying causal pathways or 'mechanisms' that promoted or hindered progress towards personal outcomes. 'Cases' (n = 24) were prison-leavers from the intervention arm of the trial. We collected practitioner activity logs and conducted semi-structured interviews with prison-leavers and Engager/other service practitioners. We mapped data for each case against the intervention logic model and then used Bhaskar's (2016) 'DREIC' analytic process to categorise cases according to extent of intervention delivery, outcomes evidenced, and contributing factors behind engagement or disengagement and progress achieved. RESULTS: There were variations in the dose and session focus of the intervention delivery, and how different participants responded. Participants sustaining long-term engagement and sustained change reached a state of 'crises but coping'. We found evidence that several components of the intervention were key to achieving this: trusting relationships, therapeutic work delivered well and over time; and an in-depth shared understanding of needs, concerns, and goals between the practitioner and participants. Those who disengaged were in one of the following states: 'Crises and chaos', 'Resigned acceptance', 'Honeymoon' or 'Wilful withdrawal'. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the 'implementability' of an intervention can be explained by examining the delivery of core intervention components in relation to the responses elicited in the participants. Core delivery mechanisms often had to be 'triggered' numerous times to produce sustained change. The improvements achieved, sustained, and valued by participants were not always reflected in the quantitative measures recorded in the RCT. The compatibility between the practitioner, participant and setting were continually at risk of being undermined by implementation failure as well as changing external circumstances and participants' own weaknesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11707331, Wales Research Ethics Committee, Registered 02-04-2016-Retrospectively registered https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11707331

The acceptability and feasibility of a planned pre-pregnancy weight loss intervention (the Plan-it Study): A Protocol Paper

Background: Women with obesity are at a greater risk of experiencing complications during the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods. Despite many studies of weight management interventions in pregnancy, systematic reviews have demonstrated limited effectiveness, demonstrating a need to increase the focus on preconception health and build a greater awareness of the association between preconception health and maternal and child outcomes. Much of the research in pre-conception weight loss has been with very specific populations or has been small-scale. The aim of the Plan-it study is to establish if it is acceptable and feasible to conduct a study that asks women with overweight/ obesity (BMI of 25 or over) to delay removal of LARC to participate in a targeted pre-pregnancy weight loss intervention. Methods: The study will take a concurrent mixed methods approach incorporating use of routine NHS data and qualitative data collection and analysis across two work-packages: the first will establish the feasibility of defining and understanding the population through routine data and the second will provide an understanding of the feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders (LARC users and practitioners) of incorporating a pre-pregnancy weight loss intervention, in addition to identifying potentially suitable weight loss interventions and the theories underpinning them. The findings from the two work packages will contribute to a final report, which will delineate the key design elements of a future trial or identify the barriers that currently prevent such a trial taking place. Discussion: The preconception period provides an opportunity to intervene with a weight loss intervention in women with overweight/ obesity. The findings of this study will contribute to the evidence base for weight management in the preconception period and provides information, critical to consider, when developing a future intervention and associated feasibility tria

Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study

Plain English summary If a woman has overweight or obesity when she is pregnant, then there is a greater risk of health problems for her and her baby. About half of women of childbearing age have overweight or obesity, so we need to find ways of supporting women to lose weight before they become pregnant (described here as ‘preconception’). This can be difficult because women do not usually talk to a health-care practitioner (e.g. general practitioners, sexual health doctors, nurses) about becoming pregnant, but one group of women who do are those who need to have a long-acting reversible contraceptive (e.g. a coil or an implant) removed. This study was designed as preparatory work for a potential future study of a preconception weight loss intervention. We wanted to answer three questions: (1) would women with experience of overweight and of using a long-acting reversible contraceptive think that it would be acceptable to ask women to delay having their long-acting reversible contraceptive removed to take part in a weight loss intervention before pregnancy; (2) what did health-care practitioners think about that idea, and would they be happy to ask women to take part; and (3) can NHS information (routine data) tell us how many women might potentially take part in such an intervention? We looked at NHS routine data and the research on preconception weight loss interventions. A total of 100 health-care practitioners and 243 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives completed surveys, and 10 health-care practitioners and 20 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives took part in interviews. We found that routine data could not be used to identify people reliably. Designing a weight loss intervention that needed women to delay the removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive was not acceptable to women. A population-based preconception weight loss intervention with a positive focus was acceptable, but, for such a programme to be delivered by the NHS, health-care practitioners need more knowledge, skills and confidence in talking about weight with patients

Development and evaluation of a collaborative care intervention for male prison leavers with mental health problems: the Engager research programme

BackgroundMany male prison leavers have significant mental health problems. Prison leavers often have a history of trauma, ongoing substance misuse and housing insecurity. Only a minority of prison leavers receive mental health care on release from prison.ObjectivesThe aim of the Engager research programme was to develop and evaluate a theory- and evidence-informed complex intervention designed to support individuals with common mental health problems (e.g. anxiety, depression) and other complex needs, including mental health comorbidity, before and after release from prison.MethodsIn phase 1, the intervention was developed through a set of realist-informed substudies, including a realist review of psychosocial care for individuals with complex needs, case studies within services demonstrating promising intervention features, focus groups with individuals from under-represented groups, a rapid realist review of the intervention implementation literature and a formative process evaluation of the prototype intervention. In a parallel randomised trial, methodological development included selecting outcome measures through reviewing literature, piloting measures and a consensus process, developing ways to quantify intervention receipt, piloting trial procedures and modelling economic outcomes. In phase 2, we conducted an individually randomised superiority trial of the Engager intervention, cost-effectiveness and cost–consequence analyses and an in-depth mixed-methods process evaluation. Patient and public involvement influenced the programme throughout, primarily through a Peer Researcher Group.ResultsIn phase 1, the Engager intervention included multiple components. A practitioner offered participants practical support, emotional help (including mentalisation-based approaches) and liaison with other services in prison on the day of the participant’s release and for 3–5 months post release. An intervention delivery platform (i.e. training, manual, supervision) supported implementation. Outcome measures were selected through testing and stakeholder consensus to represent a broad range of domains, with a general mental health outcome as the primary measure for the trial. Procedures for recruitment and follow-up were tested and included flexible approaches to engagement and retention. In phase 2, the trial was conducted in three prison settings, with 280 participants randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either Engager plus usual care (n = 140) or usual care only (n = 140). We achieved a follow-up rate of 65% at 6 months post release from prison. We found no difference between the two groups for the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure at 6 months. No differences in secondary measures and sensitivity analyses were found beyond those expected by chance. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that Engager cost significantly more at £2133 (95% of iterations between £997 and £3374) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (–0.017, 95% of iterations between –0.042 and 0.007). The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated implementation barriers. These barriers included problems with retention of the intervention team, and the adverse health and criminal justice system context. Seventy-seven per cent (108/140) of individuals had at least one community contact. Significant proportions of participants engaging received day release work and practical support. In contrast, there was evidence that the psychological components, mentalisation and developing a shared understanding were used less consistently. When engagement was positive, these components were associated with positive achievement of goals for individuals. We were also able to identify how to improve the intervention programme theory, including how to support individuals who were unrealistic in their perception of their ability to cope with challenges post release.Strengths and limitationsOur development work provides a worked example of the development of a complex intervention, particularly given little prior evidence or theory specific to male offenders to build on. Our trial methodological development enabled the completion of, to the best of our knowledge, the first fully powered trial of a mental health intervention for prison leavers with common mental health problems. There were potential weaknesses in the trial methodology in terms of follow-up rates and outcome measures, with the latter potentially being insufficiently sensitive to important but highly individual changes in participants who responded to the intervention.ConclusionsDelivering a randomised controlled trial for prison leavers with acceptable levels of follow-up is possible, despite adverse conditions. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected. Some individuals did respond well to the intervention when both practical and psychological support were flexibly deployed as intended, with evidence that most components were experienced as helpful for some individuals. It is recommended that several key components be developed further and tested, along with improved training and supervision, to support delivery of the Engager intervention within existing teams working with prison leavers