Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

A cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of a training programme for mental health professionals to enhance user involvement in care planning in service users with severe mental health issues (EQUIP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Peter Bower, Chris Roberts, Neil O’Leary, Patrick Callaghan, Penny Bee, Claire Fraser, Chris Gibbons, Nicola Olleveant, Anne Rogers, Linda Davies, Richard Drake, Caroline Sanders, Oonagh Meade, Andrew Grundy, Lauren Walker, Lindsey Cree, Kathryn Berzins, Helen Brooks, Susan Beatty, Patrick Cahoon, Anita Rolfe, Karina Lovell

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Involving service users in planning their care is at the centre of policy initiatives to improve mental health care quality in England. Whilst users value care planning and want to be more involved in their own care, there is substantial empirical evidence that the majority of users are not fully involved in the care planning process. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training for mental health professionals in improving user involvement with the care planning processes.

Methods/Design

This is a cluster randomised controlled trial of community mental health teams in NHS Trusts in England allocated either to a training intervention to improve user and carer involvement in care planning or control (no training and care planning as usual).
We will evaluate the effectiveness of the training intervention using a mixed design, including a ‘cluster cohort’ sample, a ‘cluster cross-sectional’ sample and process evaluation. Service users will be recruited from the caseloads of care co-ordinators.
The primary outcome will be change in self-reported involvement in care planning as measured by the validated Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include involvement in care planning, satisfaction with services, medication side-effects, recovery and hope, mental health symptoms, alliance/engagement, well-being and quality of life. Cost- effectiveness will also be measured. A process evaluation informed by implementation theory will be undertaken to assess the extent to which the training was implemented and to gauge sustainability beyond the time-frame of the trial.

Discussion

It is hoped that the trial will generate data to inform mental health care policy and practice on care planning.

Trial Registration Number

ISRCTN16488358 (14 May 2014)
Literature
1.
Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: 2000.
2.
Royal College of Physicians. Advance care planning (National Guidelines, Number 12): Concise guidance to good practice. London: 2009.
3.
Care Services Improvement Partnership and National Institute for Mental Health in England. Our choices in mental health: a framework for improving choice for people who use mental health services and their carers. London: 2005.
4.
Healthcare Commission. The pathway to recovery: a review of NHS acute inpatient mental health services. London: 2008
5.
Department of Health. Effective care co-ordination in mental health services: modernising the care programme approach - A policy booklet. London: 1999.
6.
Department of Health. Refocusing the care programme approach. Policy and Positive Practice Guidance. London: 2008.
7.
Care Quality Commission. Survey of mental health inpatient services. London: 2009.
8.
Healthcare Commission. Community mental health service users’ survey. London: 2008
9.
Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Bhui K, Fulop N. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. Br Med J. 2002;325:1263–7.CrossRef
10.
Wilkinson C, McAndrew S. ‘I'm not an outsider, I'm his mother!’ A phenomenological enquiry into carer experiences of exclusion from acute psychiatric settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2008;17(6):392–401.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Rethink. Involving carers in out of area treatments: a good practice guide. London: 2007.
12.
Rethink. You care, you count: a carer’s guide to getting support. London: 2009.
13.
Rethink. Caring and coping: the guide for people caring for someone with mental illness. London: 2009.
14.
Bee PE, Playle JF, Lovell K, Barnes P, Gray R, Keeley P. Service user views and expectations of UK-registered mental health nurses: a systematic review of empirical research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45:442–57.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Murray DM. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
16.
Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? Br Med J. 2001;322(7282):355.CrossRef
17.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, MacFarlane F, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005.CrossRef
18.
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Br Med J. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRef
19.
Ludman EJ, Simon GE, Rutter CM, Bauer MS, Unutzer J. A measure for assessing patient perception of provider support for self-management of bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4:249–53.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.
21.
Ruggeri M, Lasalvia A, Dall’agnola R, van Wijngaarden B, Knudsen HC, Leese M, et al. Development, internal consistency and reliability of the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale – European Version – EPSILON Study 7. Br J Psychiatry Supp. 2000;177:S41–8.CrossRef
22.
Ruggeri M, Dall’agnola R. The development and use of the Verona expectations for care scale (VECS) and the Verona service satisfaction scale (VSSS) for measuring expectations and satisfaction with community-based psychiatric-services in service users, relatives and professionals. Psychol Med. 1993;23(2):511–23.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lelliott P, Beevor A, Hogman G, Hyslop J, Lathlean J, Ward M. Carers’ and users’ expectations of services – carer version (CUES-C): a new instrument to support the assessment of carers of people with a severe mental illness. J Ment Health. 2003;12(2):143–52.CrossRef
24.
Waddell L, Taylor M. A new self-rating scale for detecting atypical or second-generation antipsychotic side effects. J Psychopharmacol. 2008;22(3):238–43.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Ridgway PA, Press A. Assessing the recovery commitment of your mental health services: a user’s guide for the Developing Recovery Enhancing Environments Measure (DREEM). Recovery Devon; 2004
27.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983;67(6):361–70.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gaston L. Reliability and criterion-related validity of the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales – patient version. Psychological Assess. 1991;3(1):68.CrossRef
29.
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O'Connell KA. The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial - A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):299–310.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. Br Med J. 2009;338:b2393.CrossRef
32.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Br Med J. 2000;321(7262):694–6.CrossRef
33.
May C, Finch T, Mair FS, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles E, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the Normalization Process Model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Hutton JL. Are distinctive ethical principles required for cluster randomized controlled trials? Stat Med. 2001;20(3):473–88.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Edwards SJL, Braunholtz DA, Lilford RJ, Stevens AJ. Ethical issues in the design and conduct of cluster randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 1999;318(7195):1407–9.CrossRef
36.
Richards DA, Hill JJ, Gask L, Lovell K, Chew-Graham C, Bower P, et al. Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2013;347:4913.CrossRef
37.
Kennedy A, Bower P, Reeves D, Blakeman T, Bowen R, Chew-Graham C, et al. Implementation of self-management support for long term conditions in routine primary care settings: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2013;346:f2882.CrossRef
38.
Rick J, Graffy J, Knapp P, Small N, Collier DJ, Eldridge S, et al. Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15:407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of a training programme for mental health professionals to enhance user involvement in care planning in service users with severe mental health issues (EQUIP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Peter Bower
Chris Roberts
Neil O’Leary
Patrick Callaghan
Penny Bee
Claire Fraser
Chris Gibbons
Nicola Olleveant
Anne Rogers
Linda Davies
Richard Drake
Caroline Sanders
Oonagh Meade
Andrew Grundy
Lauren Walker
Lindsey Cree
Kathryn Berzins
Helen Brooks
Susan Beatty
Patrick Cahoon
Anita Rolfe
Karina Lovell
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0896-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Treatment of depression and anxiety with internet-based cognitive behavior therapy in patients with a recent myocardial infarction (U-CARE Heart): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Erratum

Erratum to: Disappointment and adherence among parents of newborns allocated to the control group: a qualitative study of a randomized clinical trial

Research

Randomized controlled pilot of an intervention to reduce and break-up overweight/obese adults’ overall sitting-time

Study protocol

Integrating smoking cessation and alcohol use treatment in homeless populations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Effects of motivational interviewing-based adherence therapy for schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Clinical evaluation of short 6-mm implants alone, short 8-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation and standard 10-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial