Examining drivers of self-harm guideline implementation by general practitioners: A qualitative analysis using the theoretical domains framework.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) examine barriers and enablers to General Practitioners' (GP) use of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for self-harm and (2) recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of them in primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: Twenty-one telephone interviews, semi-structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B), were conducted with GPs in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was employed as an analytical framework. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs), intervention functions and exemplar interventions were identified. RESULTS: GPs valued additional knowledge about self-harm risk assessments (knowledge), and communication skills were considered to be fundamental to high-pressure consultations (cognitive and interpersonal skills). GPs did not engage with the guidelines due to concerns that they would be a distraction from patient cues about risk during consultations (memory, attention and decision processes), and perceptions that following the guidance is difficult due to time pressures and lack of access to mental health referrals (environmental context and resources). Clinical uncertainty surrounding longer term care for people that self-harm, particularly patients that are waiting for or cannot access a referral, drives GPs to rely on their professional judgement over the guidance (beliefs about capabilities). CONCLUSIONS: Three key drivers related to information and skill needs, guideline engagement and clinical uncertainty need to be addressed to support GPs to be able to assess and manage self-harm. Five intervention functions and ten BCT groups were identified as potential avenues for intervention design.

What influences people's responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Individual behaviour changes, such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, are required on a population scale to reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, little is known about effective methods of communicating risk reducing information, and how populations might respond. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence relating to what (1) characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing infectious disease and (2) influences people's responses to messages. DESIGN: A rapid systematic review was conducted. Protocol is published on Prospero CRD42020188704. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO and Healthevidence.org, and grey literature (PsyarXiv, OSF Preprints) up to May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs that (1) evaluated public health messaging interventions targeted at adults and (2) concerned a communicable disease spread via primary route of transmission of respiratory and/or touch were included. Outcomes included preventative behaviours, perceptions/awareness and intentions. Non-English language papers were excluded. SYNTHESIS: Due to high heterogeneity studies were synthesised narratively focusing on determinants of intentions in the absence of measured adherence/preventative behaviours. Themes were developed independently by two researchers and discussed within team to reach consensus. Recommendations were translated from narrative synthesis to provide evidence-based methods in providing effective messaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eligible papers were identified. Characteristics of effective messaging include delivery by credible sources, community engagement, increasing awareness/knowledge, mapping to stage of epidemic/pandemic. To influence intent effectively, public health messages need to be acceptable, increase understanding/perceptions of health threat and perceived susceptibility. DISCUSSION: There are four key recommendations: (1) engage communities in development of messaging, (2) address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, (3) focus on unifying messages from sources and (4) frame messages aimed at increasing understanding, social responsibility and personal control. Embedding principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health-risk communication during epidemics/pandemics.