Telephone treatments in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services: an analysis of use and impact on treatment uptake.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about how best to increase access to psychological therapy and deliver mental healthcare effectively and efficiently at a national level. One trend is the increased use of the telephone to deliver therapy. However, there is the potential to disadvantage certain patient groups and/or impact on uptake of help. This study aims to answer three questions: (i) Which factors are associated with being offered an assessment by telephone? (ii) Which factors are associated with attendance at assessment? and (iii) What is the impact of an assessment by telephone on subsequent treatment appointment? METHODS: Routine outcome data was provided by seven UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services. The analysis sample comprised 49,923 patients who referred to 615 general practices in 2017. Multilevel modelling, including service and GP practice as random factors, was used to answer the three research questions. RESULTS: The offer of an initial assessment by telephone was strongly associated with local service configuration. Patient self-referral, a shorter wait, greater age and lower deprivation were associated with attendance at assessment and subsequent treatment session. Telephone mode assessment had no impact on the uptake of the assessment but may influence the uptake of further treatment if this was also by telephone. The practitioner carrying out the assessment had a significant effect on subsequent treatment uptake. CONCLUSION: Offering telephone assessments does not have a negative impact on uptake of assessment and services may benefit by facilitating and integrating telephone assessments into their systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of telephone and other remote means of delivery, and results from this study can inform services to consider how best to re-configure post-pandemic.

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: We found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

Exploring Associations between Stressors and Burnout in Trainee Doctors During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined associations between stressors and burnout in trainee doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire including 42 questions on general and pandemic-specific stressors, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Health Services Survey (MBI-HSS), was sent to 1000 randomly selected trainee doctors in North-West England. Main outcomes were burnout scores that were stratified into Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalisation (DP), and reduced Personal Accomplishment (PA) and associations between stressors and burnout using stepwise regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 362 complete responses were received giving a response rate of 37%. Mean scores for EE, DP, and PA derived from the MBI-HSS were 27.7, 9.8, and 34.3 respectively. Twenty-three stressors were found to be associated with burnout dimensions. "Increase in workload and hours due to COVID-19," "Poor leadership and management in the National Health Service," and "Not feeling valued" were found to have strong associations with burnout dimensions. Only "Not confident in own abilities" was found to be associated with all burnout dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Associations with burnout were found to be identified in a range of work, pandemic, and non-work-related stressors, supporting the need for multi-level interventions to mitigate burnout.

Cross-sectional study exploring the association between stressors and burnout in junior doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to develop a comprehensive list of stressors relevant to junior doctors and will also report findings exploring the associations between burnout and stressors, which include work and non-work-related stressors as well as pandemic-related stressors. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected junior doctors in the North-West of England. The questionnaire included 37 questions on general and pandemic-specific stressors, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory Health Services Survey. The main outcomes of interest were junior doctor ratings of stressors and scores for burnout (emotional exhaustion [EE], depersonalisation [DP], and personal accomplishment [PA]). Stepwise regression analysis was undertaken to assess associations between stressors and burnout. RESULTS: In total, 326 responses were collected (response rate = 33%). Of the top 10 stressors rated by junior doctors, 60% were related to the pandemic. Multiple stressors were found to be associated with the burnout dimensions. Fatigue (ß = .43), pandemic-related workload increase (ß = .33), and feeling isolated (ß = .24) had the strongest associations with EE, whereas fatigue (ß = .21), uncertainty around COVID-19 information (ß = .22) and doing unproductive tasks (ß = .17) had the strongest associations with DP. Working beyond normal scope due to COVID-19 (ß = -.26), not confident in own ability (ß = -.24) and not feeling valued (ß = -.20) were found to have the strongest associations with PA. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors experience a combination of general stressors and additional stressors emerging from the pandemic which significantly impact burnout. Monitoring these stressors and targeting them as part of interventions could help mitigating burnout in junior doctors.

Effects of Digital Technologies on Older People's Access to Health and Social Care: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic prompted the rapid implementation of new and existing digital technologies to facilitate access to health and care services during physical distancing. Older people may be disadvantaged in that regard if they are unable to use or have access to smartphones, tablets, computers, or other technologies. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we synthesized evidence on the impact of digital technologies on older adults' access to health and social services. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published from January 2000 to October 2019 using comprehensive searches of 6 databases. We looked for reviews in a population of adults aged ≥65 years in any setting, reporting outcomes related to the impact of technologies on access to health and social care services. RESULTS: A total of 7 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, providing data from 77 randomized controlled trials and 50 observational studies. All of them synthesized findings from low-quality primary studies, 2 of which used robust review methods. Most of the reviews focused on digital technologies to facilitate remote delivery of care, including consultations and therapy. No studies examined technologies used for first contact access to care, such as online appointment scheduling. Overall, we found no reviews of technology to facilitate first contact access to health and social care such as online appointment booking systems for older populations. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of digital technologies on equitable access to services for older people is unclear. Research is urgently needed in order to understand the positive and negative consequences of digital technologies on health care access and to identify the groups most vulnerable to exclusion.

Contributors to stress and burnout in junior doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionJunior doctors have previously reported high levels of burnout;and additional stressors have likely emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic may further accelerate burnout. There is a need to identify which particular stressors are most likely to lead to burnout in junior doctors in order to develop appropriate interventions. Objectives1) To develop a comprehensive list of stressors that are relevant to junior doctors, which includes general work and non-work related stressors as well as stressors that have specifically emerged with the pandemic. 2) To assess which of these stressors are most strongly associated with burnout.MethodsAn anonymous online questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected junior doctors in the North West of England between 10/07/20 to 04/08/20. It included 37 questions on general and pandemic-specific stressors, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Health Services Survey. Stepwise regression analyses were undertaken to assess associations between stressors and burnout.ResultsIn total, 326 responses were collected (response rate=33%). Of the top 10 stressors rated by junior doctors, 60% were related to the pandemic. Multiple stressors were found to be associated with the burnout dimensions. Fatigue (β=0.43), pandemic-related workload increase (β=0.33) and feeling isolated (β=0.24) had the strongest associations with Emotional Exhaustion, whereas fatigue (β=0.24), uncertainty around COVID-19 information (β=0.22) and doing unproductive tasks (β =0.22) had the strongest associations with Depersonalisation.ConclusionJunior doctors experience a combination of general stressors and additional stressors emerging from the pandemic which significantly to impact on burnout. Monitoring these stressors and targeting them as part of interventions could help mitigating burnout in junior doctors.