Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK-based midwives.

The modified version of the IPQ is not suitable for evaluating the impact of psychosocial intervention training on changes in illness perceptions of schizophrenia in mental health practitioners. However, the study has highlighted the need to develop a valid and reliable measure to assess the illness perceptions health professionals have of patients in their care.

Macmillan Cancer Support UK have developed an electronic Holistic Needs Assessment (eHNA) to: (1) help people living with cancer express all their needs, (2) help those helping them better target support. eHNA consists of 48 items each ranked from zero (no problem) to 10. There has been no psychometric analysis of this tool and so its validity and reliability are untested. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the eHNA by examining its construct validity. Objectives were to (a) test whether the eHNA measured holistic concerns and (b) analyse the factor structure of the eHNA. Objectives were achieved through a secondary analysis of 5421 responses to eHNA using concurrent application of Rasch analysis and principal component analysis. All the items bar one fit with the Rasch rating model and were equivalently important to people. Differential item functioning was evident according to whether people were described as curative or not. A 12-factor solution explained 46 % variance. Of this the emotional/spiritual factor explained the most variance accounting for 15 %. The eHNA was internally consistent and conceptually coherent with the construct of holistic needs assessment. Clinical focus is best directed to the individual items highlighted by the patient except where patients check too many problems for the clinician to accurately prioritise. In these cases only, the emotional/spiritual factor may help identify appropriate clinical action. Strengths and weaknesses of the analyses are discussed, particularly in relation to ‘at risk’ subsamples such as those classified as non-curative.

Despite the efficacy, political will and numbers of mental health practitioners trained in psychosocial interventions, they remain scarcely available in routine clinical practice. External factors such as the inability of mental health organisations to develop strategies to support the use of psychosocial interventions have been implicated. This study compares data from two groups, one that had completed psychosocial intervention training (n=104) and one that had not received psychosocial intervention training (n=102). Both groups completed measures of self‐efficacy, locus of control and an application of psychosocial interventions to practice. Results showed that psychosocial intervention training significantly increased the level of self‐efficacy for using psychosocial interventions in practice. The group that had received psychosocial interventions training had lower internal locus of control orientation. Self‐efficacy was significantly related to using psychosocial interventions in practice. There is a discussion of the implications of these findings.