Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental
                        health services: standardised measure and reporting
                        guidelines

Bird, Victoria; Boutillier, Clair Le; Leamy, Mary; Williams, Julie; Bradstreet, Simon; Slade, Mike

doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128314

Cited by 53 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the outset of this review, a literature search returned only one systematic tool for measuring the feasibility of mental health interventions: the Structured Assessment of FEasibility (SAFE) tool (Bird et al 2014) (additional frameworks have been developed and tested since; see Weiner et al (2017)). The SAFE tool features sixteen different aspects of feasibility, which we adapted (excluding 'effectiveness', 'pilotable', and 'reversible' criteria) to fit our research questions.…”

Section: Definition Of Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, the lack of standardised definition and validated measures of feasibility limited our ability to compare feasibility across studies and identification models. Finally, whilst the SAFE guidance was comprehensive, it would have been useful to compare it with other tools (nearly 40 identified aspects of feasibility were left out of the tool; see Appendix DS1 of Bird et al 2014). Widening the scope of feasibility criteria would likely have led to inclusion of additional studies.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this review, 'feasibility' refers to the impact of factors that affect programme implementation, including demand, ease of delivery, practicality, flexibility, and some aspects of acceptability (Bird et al 2014;Bowen et al 2009). Barriers and facilitators at the intervention level as well as the larger context in which an intervention takes place (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Feasibility of School-Based Identification of Children and Adolescents Experiencing, or At-risk of Developing, Mental Health Difficulties: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under-identification of mental health difficulties (MHD) in children and young people contributes to the significant unmet need for mental health care. School-based programmes have the potential to improve identification rates. This systematic review aimed to determine the feasibility of various models of school-based identification of MHD. We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, British Education Index, and ASSIA using terms for mental health combined with terms for school-based identification. We included studies that assessed feasibility of school-based identification of students in formal education aged 3-18 with MHD, symptomatology of MHD, or exposed to risks for MHD. Feasibility was defined in terms of (1) intervention fit, (2) cost and resource implications, (3) intervention complexity, flexibility, manualisation, and time concerns, and (4) adverse events. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The majority focused on behavioural and socioemotional problems or suicide risk, examined universal screening models, and used cross-sectional designs. In general, school-based programmes for identifying MHD aligned with schools' priorities, but their appropriateness for students varied by condition. Time, resource, and cost concerns were the most common barriers to feasibility across models and conditions. The evidence base regarding feasibility is limited, and study heterogeneity prohibits definitive conclusions about the feasibility of different identification models. Education, health, and government agencies must determine how to allocate available resources to make the widespread adoption of school-based identification programmes more feasible. Furthermore, the definition and measurement of feasibility must be standardised to promote any future comparison between models and conditions.

show abstract

Section: Definition Of Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feasibility of School-Based Identification of Children and Adolescents Experiencing, or At-risk of Developing, Mental Health Difficulties: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst the recovery process for individuals is influenced by more than their contact with mental health care, services will contribute to many people’s recovery experience [3, 4]. The principle of evidence-based health care is now largely accepted as a quality standard of mental health practice, yet a translational gap between knowledge and routine implementation has been cited as a major challenge to innovation in mental health [5, 6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staff understanding of recovery-orientated mental health practice: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMental health policy is for staff to transform their practice towards a recovery orientation. Staff understanding of recovery-orientated practice will influence the implementation of this policy. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of empirical studies identifying clinician and manager conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice.MethodsA systematic review of empirical primary research was conducted. Data sources were online databases (n = 8), journal table of contents (n = 5), internet, expert consultation (n = 13), reference lists of included studies and references to included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to integrate the findings.ResultsA total of 10,125 studies were screened, 245 full papers were retrieved, and 22 were included (participants, n = 1163). The following three conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice were identified: clinical recovery, personal recovery and service-defined recovery. Service-defined recovery is a new conceptualisation which translates recovery into practice according to the goals and financial needs of the organisation.ConclusionsOrganisational priorities influence staff understanding of recovery support. This influence is leading to the emergence of an additional meaning of recovery. The impact of service-led approaches to operationalising recovery-orientated practice has not been evaluated.Trial RegistrationThe protocol for the review was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005942).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0275-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…An additional aspect is that the feasibility of a complex mental healthcare model will play a more important role in the future, as the currently used assessments of efficiency and cost-effectiveness will prove useless unless the model is feasible in clinical practice. Instruments are being developed to assess this aspect in future studies (15,16).…”

Section: How To Choose the Most Appropriate Research Design For Evalumentioning

confidence: 99%

How to evaluate mental healthcare models

Kowitz¹,

Großimlinghaus²,

Kerst³

et al. 2016

Die Psychiatrie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background: One of the main measures of improving the quality of mental healthcare in Europe is to promote the implementation of effective healthcare services. The evaluation of such health-care models is needed to assess their effectiveness and efficiency. Objectives: The article points out the main methodological challenges of demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of mental healthcare models. Results: Implementing healthcare models is complex and includes several components and a high number of confounding variables. This makes it difficult to identify the “active ingredients”. The range of evaluation criteria is wide. Therefore, it is crucial to define the main aim of the intervention clearly and to choose evaluation assessments with relevance for these aims. Conclusion: Addressing the question how to evaluate mental healthcare models, evaluation studies have to provide information not only about the chosen evaluation criteria but also about the context, in which a healthcare model works.

show abstract

Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines

Abstract: A novel approach to evaluating interventions, SAFE, supplements efficacy and health economic evidence. The SAFE reporting guidelines will allow feasibility of an intervention to be systematically assessed.

Cited by 53 publications

References 34 publications

Feasibility of School-Based Identification of Children and Adolescents Experiencing, or At-risk of Developing, Mental Health Difficulties: a Systematic Review

Feasibility of School-Based Identification of Children and Adolescents Experiencing, or At-risk of Developing, Mental Health Difficulties: a Systematic Review

Staff understanding of recovery-orientated mental health practice: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

How to evaluate mental healthcare models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About