4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What is important to service users and staff when implementing suicide-focused psychological therapies for people with psychosis into mental health services?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Suicide is a leading cause of death globally. People with psychosis are at increased risk of suicide death and up to half experience suicidal thoughts and/or engage in suicidal behaviors in their lifetime. Talking therapies can be effective in alleviating suicidal experiences. However, research is yet to be translated into practice, demonstrating a gap in service provision. The barriers and facilitators in therapy implementation require a thorough investigation including the perspectives of different stakeholders such as service users and mental health professionals. This study aimed to investigate stakeholders’ (health professionals and service users) perspectives of implementing a suicide-focused psychological therapy for people experiencing psychosis in mental health services.

          Methods

          Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals and 18 service users were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed and managed using reflexive thematic analysis and NVivo software.

          Results

          For suicide-focused therapy to be successfully implemented in services for people with psychosis, there are four key aspects that need to be considered: (i) Creating safe spaces to be understood; (ii) Gaining a voice; (iii) Accessing therapy at the right time; and (iv) Ensuring a straightforward pathway to accessing therapy.

          Discussion

          Whilst all stakeholders viewed a suicide-focused therapy as valuable for people experiencing psychosis, they also recognize that enabling successful implementation of such interventions will require additional training, flexibility, and resources to existing services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

              Background It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients. Methods Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. Results From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews). From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Conclusion Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                12 May 2023
                2023
                : 14
                : 1154092
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (MAHSC) , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [3] 3Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Faculty of Biological, Medical and Health Sciences, University of Manchester , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust , Manchester, United Kingdom
                [5] 5Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust , Lancashire, United Kingdom
                [6] 6Department of Health Research, Lancaster University , Lancaster, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Balasankar Ganesan, School of Allied Health and Human Services, IHM, Australia

                Reviewed by: Dalinda Isabel Sánchez-Vidaña, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China; Elaine Stasiulis, Rotman Research Institute (RRI), Canada

                *Correspondence: Sarah Peters, sarah.peters@ 123456manchester.ac.uk
                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1154092
                10213358
                0e027840-5452-49b9-8f6f-7e85696b3bc3
                Copyright © 2023 Peters, Awenat, Gooding, Harris, Cook, Huggett, Jones, Lobban, Pratt and Haddock.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 30 January 2023
                : 24 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 44, Pages: 10, Words: 8500
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) funding stream which is a Medical Research (MRC), United Kingdom and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) partnership (Reference number: 13/161/25). The funder had no role in the design of the study, data collection, recruitment strategy, analyses and interpretation, the writing of reports/journal articles arising from the work nor any role in decisions to publish.
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                Schizophrenia

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                implementation,talking therapy,psychological therapy,suicidality,suicidal thoughts,suicidal behaviors,psychosis,schizophrenia

                Comments

                Comment on this article