"They're Really PD Today": An Exploration of Mental Health Nursing Students' Perceptions of Developing a Therapeutic Relationship With Patients With a Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder

The therapeutic relationship is of particular importance when working with patients with antisocial personality disorder, but despite this, there is a paucity of literature exploring student nurses’ perceptions of developing a therapeutic relationship with such patients. Hence, this qualitative study explored the perceptions of second-year mental health nursing students of developing a therapeutic relationship with this patient group. Student nurses from a University in the Northwest of England participated in two focus groups, to compare the perceptions of a group of student nurses who had experience in secure settings (forensic hospital) with those who had not. Four key themes emerged: diagnosis, safety, engagement, and finally environmental influences. Both groups commented on looking beyond the diagnosis and seeing the person. The student nurses cited other staff in their clinical placement areas as hugely influential in terms of the development of their perceptions of patients with antisocial personality disorder and how to relate to them

Public attitudes towards alcohol control policies in Scotland and England: Results from a mixed-methods study

The harmful effects of heavy drinking on health have been widely reported, yet public opinion on governmental responsibility for alcohol control remains divided. This study examines UK public attitudes towards alcohol policies, identifies underlying dimensions that inform these, and relationships with perceived effectiveness. A cross-sectional mixed methods study involving a telephone survey of 3477 adult drinkers aged 16-65 and sixteen focus groups with 89 adult drinkers in Scotland and England was conducted between September 2012 and February 2013. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to reduce twelve policy statements into underlying dimensions. These dimensions were used in linear regression models examining alcohol policy support by demographics, drinking behaviour and perceptions of UK drinking and government responsibility. Findings were supplemented with a thematic analysis of focus group transcripts. A majority of survey respondents supported all alcohol policies, although the level of support varied by type of policy. Greater enforcement of laws on under-age sales and more police patrolling the streets were strongly supported while support for pricing policies and restricting access to alcohol was more divided. PCA identified four main dimensions underlying support on policies: alcohol availability, provision of health information and treatment services, alcohol pricing, and greater law enforcement. Being female, older, a moderate drinker, and holding a belief that government should do more to reduce alcohol harms were associated with higher support on all policy dimensions. Focus group data revealed findings from the survey may have presented an overly positive level of support on all policies due to differences in perceived policy effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness can help inform underlying patterns of policy support and should be considered in conjunction with standard measures of support in future research on alcohol control policies

Impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on the delivery of alcohol screening and brief advice in English primary health care : an interrupted time–series analysis

Aim To evaluate the impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on alcohol screening and brief advice delivery in English primary care. Design Interrupted time–series using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Data were split into three periods: (1) before the introduction of financial incentives (1 January 2006–31 March 2008); (2) during the implementation of financial incentives (1 April 2008–31 March 2015); and (3) after the withdrawal of financial incentives (1 April 2015–31 December 2016). Segmented regression models were fitted, with slope and step change coefficients at both intervention points. Setting England. Participants Newly registered patients (16+) in 500 primary care practices for 2006–16 (n = 4 278 723). Measurements The outcome measures were percentage of patients each month who: (1) were screened for alcohol use; (2) screened positive for higher‐risk drinking; and (3) were reported as having received brief advice on alcohol consumption. Findings There was no significant change in the percentage of newly registered patients who were screened for alcohol use when financial incentives were introduced. However, the percentage fell (P < 0.001) immediately when incentives were withdrawn, and fell by a further 2.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.21–3.70] patients per 1000 each month thereafter. After the introduction of incentives, there was an immediate increase of 9.05 (95% CI = 3.87–14.23) per 1000 patients screening positive for higher‐risk drinking, but no significant further change over time. Withdrawal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate fall in screen‐positive rates of 29.96 (95% CI = 19.56–40.35) per 1000 patients, followed by a rise each month thereafter of 2.14 (95% CI = 1.51–2.77) per 1000. Screen‐positive patients recorded as receiving alcohol brief advice increased by 20.15 (95% CI = 12.30–28.00) per 1000 following the introduction of financial incentives, and continued to increase by 0.39 (95% CI = 0.26–0.53) per 1000 monthly until withdrawal. At this point, delivery of brief advice fell by 18.33 (95% CI = 11.97–24.69) per 1000 patients and continued to fall by a further 0.70 (95% CI = 0.28–1.12) per 1000 per month. Conclusions Removing a financial incentive for alcohol prevention in English primary care was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction in the rate of screening for alcohol use and brief advice provision. This contrasts with no, or limited, increase in screening and brief advice delivery rates following the introduction of the scheme

Classificatory multiplicity: intimate partner violence diagnosis in emergency department consultations

Aims and Objectives The aim of this research was to explore the naming, or classification, of physical assaults by a partner as ‘intimate partner violence’ during emergency department consultations. Background Research continues to evidence instances when intimate partner physical violence is ‘missed’ or unacknowledged during emergency department consultations. Methods Theoretically this research was approached through complexity theory and the sociology of diagnosis. Research design was an applied, descriptive and explanatory, multiple-method approach that combined: qualitative semi-structured interviews with service users (n=8) and emergency department practitioners (n=9), and qualitative and quantitative document analysis of emergency department health records (n=28). Results This study found that multiple classifications of intimate partner violence were mobilised during emergency department consultations and that these different versions of intimate partner violence held different diagnostic categories, processes, and consequences. Conclusion The construction of different versions of intimate partner violence in emergency department consultations could explain variance in people’s experiences and outcomes of consultations. The research found that the classificatory threshold for ‘intimate partner violence’ was too high. Strengthening systems of diagnosis (identification and intervention) so that all incidents of partner violence are named as ‘intimate partner violence’ will reduce the incidence of missed cases and afford earlier specialist intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms. Relevance to Clinical Practice This research found that identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence, was contingent. By lowering the classificatory threshold so that all incidents of partner violence are named as ‘intimate partner violence’, practitioners could make a significant contribution to reducing missed intimate partner violence during consultations and improving health outcomes for this population. This research has relevance for practitioners in any setting where service-user report of intimate partner violence is possible.   SUMMARY BOX What does this paper contribute to wider global community? • Identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence was found to be contingent. • Classification of intimate partner violence was connected to: legal duty to respond statutory frameworks of risk of harms; socio-cultural discourses about what counts as intimate partner violence; and health care practitioners’ perceptions of usual modes of disclosure. • Connecting all reports of partner perpetrated violence to intimate partner violence identification and intervention will reduce missed cases in health consultations and mobilise earlier intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms. • The sociology of diagnosis is a valuable conceptual tool for examining variance in identification and response for a wide range of determinants of health of concern for nurses and allied professions

Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a home-based nurse home-visiting programme to support vulnerable parents. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) has similar aims and materials and was demonstrated to be feasible in implementation evaluations. Objectives: To determine whether or not gFNP, compared with usual care, could reduce risk factors for maltreatment in a vulnerable group and be cost-effective. Design: A multisite randomised controlled parallel-group trial and prospective economic evaluation, with eligible women allocated (minimised by site and maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Setting: Community locations in the UK. Participants: Expectant mothers aged < 20 years with one or more previous live births, or expectant mothers aged 20–24 years with no previous live births and with low educational qualifications (defined as General Certificate of Education at grade C or higher in neither mathematics nor English language or, if they had both, no more than four General Certificates of Education at grade C or higher). Intervention: Forty-four sessions of gFNP (14 during pregnancy and 30 in the first 12 months after birth) were offered to groups of between 8 and 12 women with similar expected delivery dates (the difference between the earliest and latest expected delivery date ranged from 8 to 10 weeks depending on the group) by two family nurses (FNs), one of whom had notified her intention to practise as a midwife. Main outcome measures: Parenting was assessed by a self-report measure of parenting opinions, the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Version 2 (AAPI-2), and an objective measure of maternal sensitivity, the CARE-Index. Cost-effectiveness was primarily expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data sources: Interviews with participants at baseline and when infants were aged 2, 6 and 12 months. Cost information from nurse weekly logs and other service delivery data. Results: In total, 166 women were enrolled (99 to the intervention group and 67 to the control group). Adjusting for site and maternal age group, the intention-to-treat analysis found no effect of gFNP on either of the primary outcomes. AAPI-2 total was 7.5/10 [standard error (SE) 0.1] in both arms [difference also adjusted for baseline 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.15 to 0.28; p = 0.50]. CARE-Index maternal sensitivity mean: intervention 4.0 (SE 0.3); control 4.7 (SE 0.4) (difference –0.76, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.13; p = 0.21). The sensitivity analyses supported the primary analyses. The probability that the gFNP intervention was cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. However, in terms of change in AAPI-2 score (baseline to 12 months), the probability that gFNP was cost-effective reached 25.1%. A separate discrete choice experiment highlighted the value placed by both pregnant women and members of the general population on non-health outcomes that were not included in the QALY metric. Limitations: Slow recruitment resulted in smaller than ideal group sizes. In some cases, few or no sessions took place owing to low initial group size, and small groups may have contributed to attrition from the intervention. Exposure to gFNP sessions was below maximum for most group members, with only 58 of the 97 intervention participants receiving any sessions; FNs were experienced with FNP but were mainly new to delivering gFNP. Conclusions: The trial does not support the delivery of gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child abuse or neglect in this population. Future work: A randomised controlled trial with modified eligibility to enable first-time mothers aged < 20 years to be included, and a modified recruitment strategy to enable faster identification of potential participants from antenatal medical records

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

The effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: an evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is a substantial social problem that affects large numbers of children and young people in the UK, resulting in a range of significant short- and long-term psychosocial problems. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions addressing the adverse consequences of child maltreatment. STUDY DESIGN: For effectiveness, we included any controlled study. Other study designs were considered for economic decision modelling. For acceptability, we included any study that asked participants for their views. PARTICIPANTS: Children and young people up to 24 years 11 months, who had experienced maltreatment before the age of 17 years 11 months. INTERVENTIONS: Any psychosocial intervention provided in any setting aiming to address the consequences of maltreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological distress [particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, and self-harm], behaviour, social functioning, quality of life and acceptability. METHODS: Young Persons and Professional Advisory Groups guided the project, which was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Departures from the published protocol were recorded and explained. Meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses of available data were undertaken where possible. RESULTS: We identified 198 effectiveness studies (including 62 randomised trials); six economic evaluations (five using trial data and one decision-analytic model); and 73 studies investigating treatment acceptability. Pooled data on cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for sexual abuse suggested post-treatment reductions in PTSD [standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.44 (95% CI -4.43 to -1.53)], depression [mean difference -2.83 (95% CI -4.53 to -1.13)] and anxiety [SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.03 to -0.42)]. No differences were observed for post-treatment sexualised behaviour, externalising behaviour, behaviour management skills of parents, or parental support to the child. Findings from attachment-focused interventions suggested improvements in secure attachment [odds ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.70)] and reductions in disorganised behaviour [SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.42)], but no differences in avoidant attachment or externalising behaviour. Few studies addressed the role of caregivers, or the impact of the therapist-child relationship. Economic evaluations suffered methodological limitations and provided conflicting results. As a result, decision-analytic modelling was not possible, but cost-effectiveness analysis using effectiveness data from meta-analyses was undertaken for the most promising intervention: CBT for sexual abuse. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of CBT were limited by the lack of cost data beyond the cost of CBT itself. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw firm conclusions about which interventions are effective for children with different maltreatment profiles, which are of no benefit or are harmful, and which factors encourage people to seek therapy, accept the offer of therapy and actively engage with therapy. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. LIMITATIONS: Studies were largely conducted outside the UK. The heterogeneity of outcomes and measures seriously impacted on the ability to conduct meta-analyses. FUTURE WORK: Studies are needed that assess the effectiveness of interventions within a UK context, which address the wider effects of maltreatment, as well as specific clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003889. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis

BackgroundExposure to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of negative outcomes across the lifespan.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of making recommendations for further research.Design(1) A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; (2) a systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; (3) a network meta-analysis (NMA) of controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analysis; (4) an overview of current UK provision of interventions; and (5) consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.SettingsNorth America (11), the Netherlands (1) and Israel (1) for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; the USA (4) and the UK (1) for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and the UK for the overview of current UK provision of interventions and consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.ParticipantsA total of 1345 children for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; 100 children, 202 parents and 39 professionals for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and 16 young people, six parents and 20 service providers and commissioners for the consultation with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.InterventionsPsychotherapeutic, advocacy, parenting skills and advocacy, psychoeducation, psychoeducation and advocacy, guided self-help.Main outcome measuresInternalising symptoms and externalising behaviour, mood, depression symptoms and diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and self-esteem for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions and NMA; views about and experience of interventions for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions and consultations.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, World Health Organization trials portal and clinicaltrials.gov.Review methodsA narrative review; a NMA and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis; and a qualitative synthesis.ResultsThe evidence base on targeted interventions was small, with limited settings and types of interventions; children were mostly &lt; 14 years of age, and there was an absence of comparative studies. The interventions evaluated in trials were mostly psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions delivered to the non-abusive parent and child, usually based on the child’s exposure to DVA (not specific clinical or broader social needs). Qualitative studies largely focused on psychoeducational interventions, some of which included the abusive parent. The evidence for clinical effectiveness was as follows: 11 trials reported improvements in behavioural or mental health outcomes, with modest effect sizes but significant heterogeneity and high or unclear risk of bias. Psychoeducational group-based interventions delivered to the child were found to be more effective for improving mental health outcomes than other types of intervention. Interventions delivered to (non-abusive) parents and to children were most likely to be effective for improving behavioural outcomes. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around comparisons, particularly with regard to mental health outcomes. In terms of evidence of cost-effectiveness, there were no economic studies of interventions. Cost-effectiveness was modelled on the basis of the NMA, estimating differences between types of interventions. The outcomes measured in trials were largely confined to children’s mental health and behavioural symptoms and disorders, although stakeholders’ concepts of success were broader, suggesting that a broader range of outcomes should be measured in trials. Group-based psychoeducational interventions delivered to children and non-abusive parents in parallel were largely acceptable to all stakeholders. There is limited evidence for the acceptability of other types of intervention. In terms of the UK evidence base and service delivery landscape, there were no UK-based trials, few qualitative studies and little widespread service evaluation. Most programmes are group-based psychoeducational interventions. However, the funding crisis in the DVA sector is significantly undermining programme delivery.ConclusionsThe evidence base regarding the acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for children exposed to DVA is underdeveloped. There is an urgent need for more high-quality studies, particularly trials, that are designed to produce actionable, generalisable findings that can be implemented in real-world settings and that can inform decisions about which interventions to commission and scale. We suggest that there is a need to pause the development of new interventions and to focus on the systematic evaluation of existing programmes. With regard to the UK, we have identified three types of programme that could be justifiably prioritised for further study: psycho-education delivered to mothers and children, or children alone; parent skills training in combination with advocacy: and interventions involving the abusive parent/caregiver. We also suggest that there is need for key stakeholders to come together to explicitly identify and address the structural, practical and cultural barriers that may have hampered the development of the UK evidence base to date.Future work recommendationsThere is a need for well-designed, well-conducted and well-reported UK-based randomised controlled trials with cost-effectiveness analyses and nested qualitative studies. Development of consensus in the field about core outcome data sets is required. There is a need for further exploration of the acceptability and effectiveness of interventions for specific groups of children and young people (i.e. based on ethnicity, age, trauma exposure and clinical profile). There is also a need for an investigation of the context in which interventions are delivered, including organisational setting and the broader community context, and the evaluation of qualities, qualifications and disciplines of personnel delivering interventions. We recommend prioritisation of psychoeducational interventions and parent skills training delivered in combination with advocacy in the next phase of trials, and exploratory trials of interventions that engage both the abusive and the non-abusive parent.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004348 and PROSPERO CRD420130043489.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.</jats:sec