Can a new role, the (Trainee) Associate Psychological Practitioner (T/APP), add value in General Practice? Results from the pilot year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The deployment of (Trainee) Associate Psychological Practitioners (T/APPs) to deliver brief psychological interventions focusing on preventing mental health deterioration and promoting emotional wellbeing in General Practice settings is a novel development in the North West of England. As the need and demand for psychological practitioners increases, new workforce supply routes are required to meet this growth. AIMS: To evaluate the clinical impact and efficacy of the mental health prevention and promotion service, provided by the T/APPs and the acceptability of the role from the perspective of the workforce and the role to T/APPs, patients and services. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used. To evaluate clinical outcomes, patients completed measures of wellbeing (WEMWBS), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7) and resilience (BRS) at the first session, final session and at a 4-6 week follow-up. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted comparing scores from session 1 and session 4, and session 1 and follow-up for each of the four outcome measures. To evaluate acceptability, questionnaires were sent to General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients to gather qualitative and quantitative feedback on their views of the T/APP role. Quantitative responses were collated and summarised. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive summative content analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: T-test analysis revealed clinically and statistically significant reductions in depression and anxiety and elevations in wellbeing and resiliency between session 1 and session 4, and at follow-up. Moderate-large effect sizes were recorded. Acceptability of the T/APP role was established across General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients. Content analysis revealed two main themes: positive feedback and constructive feedback. Positive sub-themes included accessibility of support, type of support, patient benefit and primary care network benefit. Constructive sub-themes included integration of the role and limitations to the support. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of T/APPs into General Practice settings to deliver brief mental health prevention and promotion interventions is both clinically effective and acceptable to patients, General Practice staff and psychology graduates.

An exploration of the factors influencing career choice in mental health.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the factors that are associated with considering a career in mental health. BACKGROUND: The mental health specialty is facing a recruitment crisis in the United Kingdom but there is limited evidence about which factors encourage and discourage people from considering a career in mental health. DESIGN: Quantitative, observational, online survey using a multiple ordinal logistic regression model to identify if there were any significant predictors of the extent to which participants would consider a career in mental health. The design and write up of the study were guided by the STROBE checklist. METHOD: We gathered the views of 231 participants (female = 188, 81.7%) aged between 16-65 (mean = 22.7, SD = 8.9), using an online survey, the majority of whom were studying on, or graduates of, psychology/social studies degrees. Information was gathered about the extent to which a range of factors influenced consideration of a career in mental health. RESULTS: The majority (71.2%) of participants reported that they would definitely or probably consider undertaking a career in mental health, and over half (51.4%) would consider a career as a mental health nurse. The ability to help others and receiving appropriate training required for the role were important career choice factors. Being female, having a mental health condition and greater knowledge of mental health were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of considering a career in mental health, while having had experience of working with people with mental health difficulties was significantly negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: Students and graduates of psychology and social studies degrees appear to be a large, untapped recruitment pool for mental health services. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results can inform more targeted recruitment strategies and development of suitable career pathways for those interested in a career in mental health.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for people with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a Markov model informed by the COINCIDE randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for treating depression in patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease (CHD). SETTING: 36 primary care general practices in North West England. PARTICIPANTS: 387 participants completed baseline assessment (collaborative care: 191; usual care: 196) and full or partial 4-month follow-up data were captured for 350 (collaborative care: 170; usual care: 180). 62% of participants were male, 14% were non-white. Participants were aged ≥18 years, listed on a Quality and Outcomes Framework register for CHD and/or type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, with persistent depressive symptoms. Patients with psychosis or type I/II bipolar disorder, actively suicidal, in receipt of services for substance misuse, or already in receipt of psychological therapy for depression were excluded. INTERVENTION: Collaborative care consisted of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments, delivered over 3 months and case management by a practice nurse and a Psychological Well Being Practitioner. OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, the primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). A Markov model was constructed to extrapolate the trial results from short-term to long-term (24 months). RESULTS: The mean cost per participant of collaborative care was £317 (95% CI 284 to 350). Over 24 months, it was estimated that collaborative care was associated with greater healthcare usage costs (net cost £674 (95% CI -30 953 to 38 853)) and QALYs (net QALY gain 0.04 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.54)) than usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £16 123, and a likelihood of being cost-effective of 0.54 (willingness to pay threshold of £20 000). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is a potentially cost-effective long-term treatment for depression in patients with comorbid physical and mental illness. The estimated cost per QALY gained was below the threshold recommended by English decision-makers. Further, long-term primary research is needed to address uncertainty associated with estimates of cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252; Post-results.

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 36 general practices in the north west of England. PARTICIPANTS: 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥ 10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). RESULTS: 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80309252.

Update on the collaborative interventions for circulation and depression (COINCIDE) trial: changes to planned methodology of a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The COINCIDE trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease attending English general practices. DESIGN: This update details changes to the cluster and patient recruitment strategy for the COINCIDE study. The original protocol was published in Trials (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-13-139.pdf). Modifications were made to the recruitment targets in response to lower-than-expected patient recruitment at the first ten general practices recruited into the study. In order to boost patient numbers and retain statistical power, the number of general practices recruited was increased from 30 to 36. Follow-up period was shortened from 6 months to 4 months to ensure that patients recruited to the trial could be followed up by the end of the study. RESULTS: Patient recruitment began on the 01/05/2012 and is planned to be completed by the 30/04/2013. Recruitment for general practices was completed on 31/10/2012, by which time the target of 36 practices had been recruited. The main trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: The data from the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252.

Collaborative Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Depression is up to two to three times as common in people with long-term conditions. It negatively affects medical management of disease and self-care behaviors, and leads to poorer quality of life and high costs in primary care. Screening and treatment of depression is increasingly prioritized, but despite initiatives to improve access and quality of care, depression remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in people with long-term conditions. Collaborative care is known to positively affect the process and outcome of care for people with depression and long-term conditions, but its effectiveness outside the USA is still relatively unknown. Furthermore, collaborative care has yet to be tested in settings that resemble more naturalistic settings that include patient choice and the usual care providers. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention, for people with depression and diabetes/coronary heart disease in National Health Service (NHS) primary care, in which low-intensity psychological treatment services are delivered by the usual care provider - Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. The study also aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 6 months, and to assess qualitatively the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in the intervention general practices. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial of 30 general practices allocated to either collaborative care or usual care. Fifteen patients per practice will be recruited after a screening exercise to detect patients with recognized depression (≥10 on the nine-symptom Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Patients in the collaborative-care arm with recognized depression will be offered a choice of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments based on cognitive and behavioral approaches. Patients will be case managed by psychological well-being practitioners employed by IAPT in partnership with a practice nurse and/or general practitioner. The primary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms at 6 months on the 90-item Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90). Secondary outcomes include change in health status, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken with patients and health practitioners to gauge the extent to which the collaborative-care model is implemented, and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: COINCIDE will assess whether collaborative care can improve patient-centered outcomes, and evaluate access to and quality of care of co-morbid depression of varying intensity in people with diabetes/coronary heart disease. Additionally, by working with usual care providers such as IAPT, and by identifying and evaluating interventions that are effective and appropriate for routine use in the NHS, the COINCIDE trial offers opportunities to address translational gaps between research and implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80309252 TRIAL STATUS: Open.