IntroductionPolicy drivers in mental health to address personal recovery, stigma and poor physical health indicate that new service solutions are required. This study aimed to understand how connections to people, places and activities were utilised by individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) to benefit health and wellbeing.MethodsA five-module mixed-methods design was undertaken in two study sites. Data were collected from 150 network-mapping interviews and 41 in-depth follow-up interviews with people with SMI; in-depth interviews with 30 organisation stakeholders and 12 organisation leaders; and 44 telephone interviews with practitioners. We undertook a three-stage synthesis process including independent lived experience feedback, and a patient and public involvement team participated in tool design, data collection, analysis and write-up.ResultsThree personal network types were found in our study using the community health network approach: diverse and active; family and stable; formal and sparse. Controlled for other factors we found only four variables significantly associated with which network type a participant had: living alone or not; housing status; formal education; long-term sickness or disability. Diagnosis was not a factor. These variables are challenging to address but they do point to potential for network change. The qualitative interviews with people with SMI provided further understanding of connection-building and resource utilisation. We explored individual agency across each network type, and identified recognition of the importance and value of social support and active connection management alongside the risks of isolation, even for those most affected by mental illness. We identified tensions in personal networks, be that relationships with practitioners or families, dealing with the impact of stigma, or frustrations of not being in employment, which all impact on network resources and well-being. The value of connectedness within personal networks of people, place and activity for supporting recovery was evident in shaping identity, providing meaning to life and sense of belonging, gaining access to new resources, structuring routines and helping individuals ‘move on’ in their recovery journey.Health-care practitioners recognised that social factors were important in recovery but reported system-level barriers (workload, administrative bureaucracy, limited contact time with clients) in addressing these issues fully. Even practitioners working in third-sector services whose remit involved increasing clients’ social connection faced restrictions due to being evaluated by outcome criteria that limited holistic recovery-focused practices. Service providers were keen to promote recovery-focused approaches. We found contrasts between recovery ideology within mental health policy and recovery practice on the ground. In particular, the social aspects of supporting people with SMI are often underprioritised in the health-care system. In a demanding and changing context, strategic multiagency working was seen as crucial but we found few examples of embedded multisector organisation partnerships.ConclusionWhile our exploratory study has limitations, findings suggest potential for people with SMI to be supported to become more active managers of their personal networks to support well-being regardless of current network type. The health and social care system does not currently deliver multiagency integrated solutions to support SMI and social recovery.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Periods of depression or mania, and lesser 'ups' and 'downs', all require different support needs. Active listening and engagement, facilitating empowerment and appropriate early action are crucial elements of effective support.

Background: Despite the potential of digital health interventions to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives, and substantial investment in their development, there is little evidence of successful implementation into clinical practice. We report the first implementation study of a digital health intervention: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT), into routine mental healthcare. Our main aim was to identify critical factors affecting staff uptake and use of this online self-management tool for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar. Methods: A mixed-methods, theory-driven (Normalisation Process Theory), iterative multiple case study approach using qualitative analysis of interviews with staff and quantitative reporting of uptake. Carer researchers were part of the research team. Results: In all, 281 staff and 159 relatives from Early Intervention teams across six catchment areas (cases) in England registered on REACT; 129 staff took part in qualitative interviews. Staff were positive about REACT helping services improve support and meet clinical targets. Implementation was hindered by: high staff caseloads and difficulties prioritising carers; perception of REACT implementation as research; technical difficulties using REACT; poor interoperability with trust computer systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and training; restricted forum populations; staff fears of risk, online trolling, and replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT's long-term availability.

Background Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract