Evaluation of a brief 4-session psychoeducation procedure for high worriers based on the mood-as-input hypothesis

Given the ubiquity of worrying as a consuming and distressing activity at both clinical and sub-clinical levels, it is important to develop theory-driven procedures that address worrying and allow worriers to manage this activity. This paper describes the development and testing of a psychoeducation procedure based on mood-as-input hypothesis, which is a transdiagnostic model that describes a proximal mechanism for perseverative worrying. The study used nonclinical participants meeting IAPT criteria indicating GAD symptomatology. In 4 sessions, participants in experimental groups received psychoeducation about the basic principles of the mood-as-input hypothesis and received guidance on how to identify and change worry-relevant goal-directed decision rules and negative moods. Participants in the psychoeducation conditions were compared with participants in a befriending control group. Psychoeducation about the model significantly reduced PSWQ scores at follow-up compared with the befriending control condition (a between-groups large effect size, Cohen's d = 1.05), and the homework tasks undertaken by the psychoeducation groups raised mood and reduced worry immediately. At follow up 48.2% of participants in the psychoeducation groups were below the recommended cut-off for identifying GAD symptomatology compared with 20% of participants in the control condition. This study was conducted on a small sample, high-worry student population, without a formal diagnosis. This brief, low-intensity procedure is potentially adaptable to online or self-help procedures, and can be integrated into fuller cognitive therapy packages

How do aggregated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis

Objectives: Internationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care. Methods: We conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine ‘if then’ propositions. We identified international evidence to test these propositions through searches of electronic databases and citation tracking, and supplemented our synthesis with evidence from similar forms of performance data. We synthesized this evidence through comparing the mechanisms and impact of patient-reported outcome measures and other performance data on quality improvement in different contexts. Results: Three programme theories were identified: supporting patient choice, improving accountability and enabling providers to compare their performance with others. Relevant contextual factors were extent of public disclosure, use of financial incentives, perceived credibility of the data and the practicality of the results. Available evidence suggests that patients or their agents rarely use any published performance data when selecting a provider. The perceived motivation behind public reporting is an important determinant of how providers respond. When clinicians perceived that performance indicators were not credible but were incentivized to collect them, gaming or manipulation of data occurred. Outcome data do not provide information on the cause of poor care: providers needed to integrate and interpret patient-reported outcome measures and other outcome data in the context of other data. Lack of timeliness of performance data constrains their impact. Conclusions: Although there is only limited research evidence to support some widely held theories of how aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate quality improvement, several lessons emerge from interventions sharing the same programme theories to help guide the increasing use of these measures

Accessibility and implementation in the UK NHS services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme:learning from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy through a mixed-methods study

Background: Depression affects as many as one in five people in their lifetime and often runs a recurrent lifetime course. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an effective psychosocial approach that aims to help people at risk of depressive relapse to learn skills to stay well. However, there is an ‘implementation cliff’: access to those who could benefit from MBCT is variable and little is known about why that is the case, and how to promote sustainable implementation. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature about the implementation of MBCT. Objectives: To describe the existing provision of MBCT in the UK NHS, develop an understanding of the perceived costs and benefits of MBCT implementation, and explore the barriers and critical success factors for enhanced accessibility. We aimed to synthesise the evidence from multiple data sources to create an explanatory framework of the how and why of implementation, and to co-develop an implementation resource with key stakeholders. Design: A two-phase qualitative, exploratory and explanatory study, which was conceptually underpinned by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: UK NHS services. Methods: Phase 1 involved interviews with participants from 40 areas across the UK about the current provision of MBCT. Phase 2 involved 10 case studies purposively sampled with differing degrees of MBCT provision, and from each UK country. Case study methods included interviews with key stakeholders, including commissioners, managers, MBCT practitioners and teachers, and service users. Observations were conducted and key documents were also collected. Data were analysed using a modified approach to framework analysis. Emerging findings were verified through stakeholder discussions and workshops. Results: Phase 1: access to and the format of MBCT provision across the NHS remains variable. NHS services have typically adapted MBCT to their context and its integration into care pathways was also highly variable even within the same trust or health board. Participants’ accounts revealed stories of implementation journeys that were driven by committed individuals that were sometimes met by management commitment. Phase 2: a number of explanations emerged that explained successful implementation. Critically, facilitation was the central role of the MBCT implementers, who were self-designated individuals who ‘championed’ implementation, created networks and over time mobilised top-down organisational support. Our explanatory framework mapped out a prototypical implementation journey, often over many years. This involved implementers working through grassroots initiatives and over time mobilising top-down organisational support, and a continual fitting of evidence, with the MBCT intervention, contextual factors and the training/supervision of MBCT teachers. Key pivot points in the journey provided windows of challenge or opportunity. Limitations: The findings are largely based on informants’ accounts and, therefore, are at risk of the bias of self-reporting. Conclusions: Although access to MBCT across the UK is improving, it remains very patchy. This study provides an explanatory framework that helps us understand what facilitates and supports sustainable MBCT implementation. Future work: The framework and stakeholder workshops are being used to develop online implementation guidance