Dataset Information

Exploring the Mechanisms of a Patient-Centred Assessment with a Solution Focused Approach (DIALOG+) in the Community Treatment of Patients with Psychosis: A Process Evaluation within a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

DIALOG+ is a new intervention to make routine community mental health meetings therapeutically effective. It involves a structured assessment of patient concerns and a solution-focused approach to address them. In a randomised controlled trial, DIALOG+ was associated with better subjective quality of life and other outcomes in patients with psychosis, but it was not clear how this was achieved. This study explored the possible mechanisms.

Methods

This was a mixed-methods process evaluation within a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians who experienced DIALOG+ and were analysed using thematic analysis. The content of DIALOG+ sessions was recorded and analysed according to (i) the type of actions agreed during sessions and (ii) the domains discussed. The subjective quality of life measure was analysed with mixed-effects models to explore whether the effect of DIALOG+ was limited to life domains that had been addressed in sessions or consistent across all domains.

Results

Four qualitative themes emerged regarding the mechanisms of DIALOG+: (1) a comprehensive structure; (2) self-reflection; (3) therapeutic self-expression; and (4) empowerment. Patients took responsibility for the majority of actions agreed during sessions (65%). The treatment effect on subjective quality of life was largest for living situation (accommodation and people that the patient lives with) and mental health. Two of these domains were among the three most commonly discussed in DIALOG+ sessions (accommodation, mental health, and physical health).

Conclusion

DIALOG+ initiates positive, domain-specific change in the areas that are addressed in sessions. It provides a comprehensive and solution-focused structure to routine meetings, encourages self-reflection and expression, and empowers patients. Future research should strengthen and monitor these factors.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN34757603.

SUBMITTER: Omer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4747516 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the Mechanisms of a Patient-Centred Assessment with a Solution Focused Approach (DIALOG+) in the Community Treatment of Patients with Psychosis: A Process Evaluation within a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Omer Serif S Golden Eoin E Priebe Stefan S

PloS one 20160209 2

<h4>Background</h4>DIALOG+ is a new intervention to make routine community mental health meetings therapeutically effective. It involves a structured assessment of patient concerns and a solution-focused approach to address them. In a randomised controlled trial, DIALOG+ was associated with better subjective quality of life and other outcomes in patients with psychosis, but it was not clear how this was achieved. This study explored the possible mechanisms.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a mixed-method ...[more]

PMID: 26859388

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColombia is a middle-income country in South America, which has historically had high rates of mental health problems, coupled with a scarcity of mental health care. There is growing concern for the mental health of the adolescent population within this region. There is a significant treatment gap for young people, especially those living in the most vulnerable areas. DIALOG+ is a low-cost patient-centered intervention that can potentially improve the delivery of care and quality of life for adolescents with mental health problems.ObjectiveThis exploratory randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of an adapted version of the DIALOG+ intervention (DIALOG-A) in the community treatment of Colombian adolescents with depression and anxiety.MethodsIn total, 18 clinicians and 108 adolescents will be recruited from primary health care services in Bogota and Duitama, Colombia. Clinicians will be randomized 2:1 to either the intervention (12 clinicians:72 adolescents) or control group (6 clinicians:36 adolescents). In the intervention arm, clinicians will use DIALOG-A with adolescents once per month over 6 months. The control arm will continue to receive routine care. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months following randomization. Semistructured interviews with all clinicians and a subset of adolescents in the intervention arm will be conducted at the end of the intervention period. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data will be conducted.ResultsTrial recruitment was completed toward the end of October 2022, and follow-up is anticipated to last through to October 2023.ConclusionsThis is the first study to test an adapted resource-orientated intervention (DIALOG-A) in the treatment of adolescents with depression and anxiety attending primary care services. If the results are positive, DIALOG-A can be implemented in the routine care of adolescents with these mental health problems and provide valuable insight to other middle-income countries.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN13980767; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13980767?q=ISRCTN13980767.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/43401.

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as the preferred model of dementia care in all settings. The EPCentCare study showed that an adapted PCC approach was difficult to implement and had no effect on prescription of antipsychotics in nursing home residents in Germany. This paper reports the qualitative process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers of the implementation of PCC in German nursing homes from the perspective of participating practice development champions.MethodsFive individual and 14 group interviews were conducted with 66 participants (staff and managers) from 18 nursing homes. The analysis was based on inductive coding to identify factors influencing the PCC implementation process. Identified factors were systematised and structured by mapping them to the four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework that explains implementation processes.ResultsFacilitating implementation factors included among others broadening of the care perspective (coherence), tolerance development within the care team regarding challenging behaviour (cognitive participation), testing new approaches to solutions as a multi-professional team (collective action), and perception of effects of PCC measures (reflexive monitoring). Among the facilitating factors reported in all the NPT constructs, thus affecting the entire implementation process, were the involvement of relatives, multi-professional teamwork and effective collaboration with physicians. Barriers implied uncertainties about the implementation and expectation of a higher workload (coherence), concerns about the feasibility of PCC implementation in terms of human resources (cognitive participation), lack of a person-centred attitude by colleagues or the institution (collective action), and doubts about the effects of PCC (reflexive monitoring). Barriers influencing the entire implementation process comprised insufficient time resources, lack of support, lack of involvement of the multi-professional team, and difficulties regarding communication with the attending physicians.ConclusionsThe findings provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of facilitators and barriers structured along the implementation process. Thus, our findings may assist both researchers and clinicians to develop and reflect more efficiently on PCC implementation processes in nursing homes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295462 ; November 20, 2014.

Project description:IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus is a major global challenge, including for Thai policy-makers, as an estimated 4 million people in Thailand (population 68 million) have this condition. Premature death and disability due to diabetes are primarily due to complications which can be prevented by good risk factor control. Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) programmes provide patients with diabetes with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively manage their disease. Currently, a trial is being conducted in Thailand to evaluate the effectiveness, defined as HbA1c<7 at 12 months after enrolment, of a culturally tailored DSME in Thailand. A process evaluation can provide further interpretation of the results from complex interventions as well as insight into the success of applying the programme into a broader context.Methods and analysisThe aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and to identify contextually relevant strategies for future successful implementation. For the process evaluation, the design will be a mixed-method study collecting data from nurse providers, and village health volunteers (community health workers) as well as patients. This will be conducted using observations, interviews and focus groups from the three purposively selected groups at the beginning and end of trial. Quantitative data will be collected through surveys conducted at the beginning, during 6-month follow-up, and at the end of trial. The mixed-methods analysis will be triangulated to assess differences and similarities across the various data sources. The overall effectiveness of the intervention will be examined using multilevel analysis of repeated measures.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the Chiang Mai University Research Ethics Committee (326/2018) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (16113/RR/12850). Results will be published in open access, peer-reviewed scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT03938233.

Project description:BackgroundThe involvement and engagement of people with lived experience is considered increasingly important in health research. A growing corpus of literature on the involvement of people with lived experience of mental health conditions, including people at psychosis high risk states, can be found. This study aims to explore the subjective experience of researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states who were involved in a participatory research project.MethodsIn this study with a combined participatory and qualitative research approach, we used a reflexive thematic analysis approach to systematically analyse open reflection reports from researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states, who took part in a participatory research project (VOICE). All participants (n = 12) were asked to anonymously write reflection reports on their subjective experience of participatory research. There were no formal or content-related instructions for writing the reflection reports. Reflection reports provided by eight participants were qualitatively analysed.ResultsThree themes were identified from the analysis of the reflection reports. First "When uncertainty becomes a unifying element - reflecting on expectations and roles". Second "Fostering community growth: creating an environment for collaborative teamwork as well as new and creative directions". Third "Exploring personal and scientific achievements of the project". At the outset of the research project, the researchers' focus was on expectations and reflections on their role within the project, accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty. Subsequently, a sense of community developed within a favourable study framework. Finally, attention focused on research project outcomes and personal achievements within the project.ConclusionThe analysis of the anonymous reflection reports on a participatory research project indicates that there was a positive collaboration between participants with and without lived experience of psychosis high risk states, wherein they were able to interact on an equal footing. Participants reported an experience of equal cooperation and gained relevant personal insights from project participation. Although we do not have clear evidence of experiences of power imbalances or perceived hierarchies based on the analysed reports, these cannot be ruled out and have to be addressed in future research.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and stakeholders' involvement in the development of mental health interventions is a central part of the research process as end-user's input can improve the design of patient-centered interventions. This is particularly important when developing interventions directed towards improving the mental health of children and adolescents. The rising prevalence of mental health disorders in this population requires special attention and the development of interventions that include them as active participants is crucial.ObjectiveOur aim is to explore the perspectives and opinions of adolescents, parents, educators/youth workers, and clinicians regarding the appeal and usability of an existing patient-centered digital intervention (DIALOG+), which aims to improve quality of life.MethodsAs part of a broader study aiming to adapt and test DIALOG+, we conducted Online Focus Groups (OFGs) with adults and adolescents in two cities in Colombia. The existing DIALOG+ intervention was introduced to participants, followed by a structured discussion regarding the opinions and views of stakeholders. A framework approach was used to identify the main themes followed by content analysis to aid adaptation.ResultsWe conducted 10 OFGs with a total of 45 participants. A positive feature highlighted by all groups was the innovation of including a digital intervention in a traditional medical visit. Additionally, participants considered that the active role that adolescents have when using the intervention empowers them. Barriers identified included concerns from clinicians related to the time required during consultations and confusion with terminology. Furthermore, additional domains that are particularly relevant for the adolescent population were suggested.ConclusionsData obtained suggest that overall, the DIALOG+ intervention and supporting app are seen as innovative and appealing to adolescents as well as adult stakeholders. However, concerns raised about the availability of time to apply the intervention, the app interface and the language and terminology require modification.

Project description:IntroductionGout is increasing despite effective therapies to lower serum urate concentrations to 0.36 mmol/L or less, which, if sustained, significantly reduces acute attacks of gout. Adherence to urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is poor, with rates of less than 50% 1 year after initiation of ULT. Attempts to increase adherence in gout patients have been disappointing. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of use of a personal, self-management, 'smartphone' application (app) to achieve target serum urate concentrations in people with gout. We hypothesise that personalised feedback of serum urate concentrations will improve adherence to ULT.Methods and analysisSetting and designPrimary care. A prospective, cluster randomised (by general practitioner (GP) practices), controlled trial.ParticipantsGP practices will be randomised to either intervention or control clusters with their patients allocated to the same cluster.InterventionThe intervention group will have access to the Healthy.me app tailored for the self-management of gout. The control group patients will have access to the same app modified to remove all functions except the Gout Attack Diary.Primary and secondary outcomesThe proportion of patients whose serum urate concentrations are less than or equal to 0.36 mmol/L after 6 months. Secondary outcomes will be proportions of patients achieving target urate concentrations at 12 months, ULT adherence rates, serum urate concentrations at 6 and 12 months, rates of attacks of gout, quality of life estimations and process and economic evaluations. The study is designed to detect a ≥30% improvement in the intervention group above the expected 50% achievement of target serum urate at 6 months in the control group: power 0.80, significance level 0.05, assumed 'dropout' rate 20%.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000455460.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention.MethodsWe did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958.FindingsBetween May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Exploring the Mechanisms of a Patient-Centred Assessment with a Solution Focused Approach (DIALOG+) in the Community Treatment of Patients with Psychosis: A Process Evaluation within a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Exploring the Mechanisms of a Patient-Centred Assessment with a Solution Focused Approach (DIALOG+) in the Community Treatment of Patients with Psychosis: A Process Evaluation within a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets