Engaging Without Exposing: Use of a Fictional Character to Facilitate Mental Health Talk in Focus Groups With Men Who Have Been Subject to the Criminal Justice System.

In an effort to encourage men with experience of being subject to the criminal justice system to contribute to focus group discussions on the sensitive topic of mental health, while also doing our utmost to protect them from discomfort or risk of exploitation, we used a novel technique involving the creation of a fictional character, supplemented by an audio-recorded vignette. We studied the role played by this technique in achieving our stated aims of "engaging without exposing." In this article, we report on the use of this technique in three focus groups, showing how in very different ways it shaped the interaction between participants and generated crucial insights into the lives and service needs of each group. We conclude that the technique may lend itself to being used in focus groups with other marginalized or seldom-heard populations

Practitioners’ ability to remotely develop understanding for personalised care and support planning: a thematic analysis of multiple data sources from the feasibility phase of the Dementia Personalised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention

Practitioner understanding of patients’ preferences, wishes and needs is essential for personalised health care i.e., focusing on ‘what matters’ to people based on their individual life situation. To develop such an understanding, dementia practitioners need to use communication practices that help people share their experiences, preferences, and priorities. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, dementia support is likely to continue to be delivered both remotely and in-person. This study analysed multiple sources of qualitative data to examine the views of practitioners, people living with dementia and carers, and researchers on how an understanding of what matters to people living with dementia can be developed remotely via telephone and video call. Access to environmental stimuli, the remote use of visual tools, peoples’ tendency to downplay or omit details about their troubles and carers’ ability to disclose privately were interpreted, through thematic analysis, to be factors affecting how practitioners sought to develop understanding remotely. Cumulatively, findings show that while remote support created unique challenges to practitioners’ ability to develop understanding for personalised care, practitioners developed adaptive strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Further research should examine how, when and for whom these adapted practices for remote personalised care work, informing the development of evidence-based guidance and training on how practitioners can remotely develop the understanding required for personalised care

Practitioners' ability to remotely develop understanding for personalised care and support planning: a thematic analysis of multiple data sources from the feasibility phase of the Dementia Personalised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention

Practitioner understanding of patients' preferences, wishes and needs is essential for personalised health care i.e., focusing on 'what matters' to people based on their individual life situation. To develop such an understanding, dementia practitioners need to use communication practices that help people share their experiences, preferences, and priorities. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, dementia support is likely to continue to be delivered both remotely and in-person. This study analysed multiple sources of qualitative data to examine the views of practitioners, people living with dementia and carers, and researchers on how an understanding of what matters to people living with dementia can be developed remotely via telephone and video call. Access to environmental stimuli, the remote use of visual tools, peoples' tendency to downplay or omit details about their troubles and carers' ability to disclose privately were interpreted, through thematic analysis, to be factors affecting how practitioners sought to develop understanding remotely. Cumulatively, findings show that while remote support created unique challenges to practitioners' ability to develop understanding for personalised care, practitioners developed adaptive strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Further research should examine how, when and for whom these adapted practices for remote personalised care work, informing the development of evidence-based guidance and training on how practitioners can remotely develop the understanding required for personalised care

Engaging stakeholders in realist programme theory building: insights from the prospective phase of a primary care dementia support study

‘Dementia - Personalised Care Team’ (D-PACT) is a five-year NIHR funded programme, using realist methods to develop and evaluate a complex, person-centred intervention for people with dementia and their carers. During the early project stages, we engaged with multiple stakeholders, including people with dementia and their carers, to develop an initial programme theory (IPT) – into an elaborated programme theory (EPT), by helping to uncover intervention mechanisms leading to outcomes in specific contexts. Realist research methods for developing programme theories are under-reported. In addition, there is a paucity of practical guidance on how to engage underserved and vulnerable populations in complex interventions programme theory development. We attend to these gaps, providing a worked example of how we meaningfully engaged people living with dementia and carers, alongside field experts, as stakeholders in this process. Our IPT theory building included multi-stakeholder primary research exercises and meetings with PPI contributors and an Expert Reference Group. We adapted interview schedules, and used visual resources and scenario-based activities, to support stakeholders to think in a ‘realist’ way. Using realist and thematic analyses led to hypothesis-building of causal mechanisms. Sharing findings with stakeholders led to further refinement of the intervention design, ready for testing in a subsequent feasibility study. We found that, despite the cognitive challenges associated with dementia, innovative methods of engagement can enable this stakeholder group to understand the realist approach and provide a platform through which to share their experiences. Taking a highly flexible and unhurried approach, led to novel insights into the complexities of person-centred dementia support. We argue for more detailed methodological guidance, based on realist principles, on how to collaborate with underrepresented populations to rigorously gain insights as to what is likely to make a difference and refine initial programme theory

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

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the dementia PersonAlised care team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom and in what circumstance, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT), developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine our programme theory on how, when and for whom the intervention works and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across Southwest and Northwest England where low-income groups or ethnic minorities (eg, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public and professional stakeholder input and Phase one findings. METHOD: High volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers and practitioners. Analyses will comprise: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4 a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: Our realist evaluation will describe how, why and for whom the intervention leads (or not) to change over time; it also demonstrates how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations

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

Individual Health Trainers to support health and wellbeing for people under community supervision in the criminal justice system: the STRENGTHEN pilot RCT

No embargo require

General practitioner contributions to achieving sustained healthcare for offenders: a qualitative study

Abstract Background: Offenders frequently have substantial healthcare needs and, like many other socially marginalised groups, often receive healthcare in inverse proportion to their needs. Improved continuity of healthcare over time could contribute to addressing these needs. General Practitioners need to be able to support people with complex social and medical problems, even in systems that are not specifically designed to manage individuals with such degrees of complexity. We aimed to examine offenders’ perspectives on factors that contributed to, or worked against, creating and sustaining their access to healthcare. Methods: From a sample of 200 participants serving community or prison sentences in South West (SW) and South East (SE) England, who were interviewed about their health care experiences as part of the Care for Offenders: Continuity of Access (COCOA) study, we purposively sampled 22 participants for this sub-study, based on service use. These interviews were transcribed verbatim. A thematic analytic approach initially applied 5 a priori codes based on access and different components of continuity. Data were then examined for factors that contributed to achieving and disrupting access and continuity. Results: Participants described how their own life situations and behaviours contributed to their problems in accessing healthcare and also identified barriers created by existing access arrangements. They also highlighted how some General Practitioners used their initiative and skills to ‘workaround’ the system, and build positive relationships with them; feeling listened to and building trust were particularly valued, as was clear communication. Limitations faced by General Practitioners included a lack of appropriate services to refer people to, where the offender patients would meet the access criteria, and disagreements regarding medication prescriptions. Conclusions: General Practitioners can make a positive contribution to supporting access to healthcare for an under-served population by facilitating more flexible and less formal access arrangements, by using their relationship skills, and by problem-solving. General Practitioners should recognise their potential to transform people’s experience of healthcare whilst working in imperfect systems, particularly with vulnerable and marginalised groups who have complex medical and social needs

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the dementia PersonAlised care team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol

Background Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom and in what circumstance, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT), developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AimPhase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine our programme theory on how, when and for whom the intervention works and 2) evaluate its value and impact. Design & setting A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across Southwest and Northwest England where low-income groups or ethnic minorities (eg, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public and professional stakeholder input and Phase one findings. Method High volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers and practitioners. Analyses will comprise: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4 a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and ‘near misses’. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation and stakeholder co-analysis. Conclusion Our realist evaluation will describe how, why and for whom the intervention leads (or not) to change over time; it also demonstrates how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations