5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of influences on implementation of supported self-management interventions for people with severe mental health problems in secondary mental health care settings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Purpose

          There is robust evidence for offering supported self-management interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI) throughout secondary mental health services, but their availability remains patchy. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on barriers and facilitators to implementing self-management interventions for people with SMI in secondary mental health care settings.

          Methods

          The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021257078). Five databases were searched to identify relevant studies. We included full-text journal articles with primary qualitative or quantitative data on factors which affect the implementation of self-management interventions for people with SMI in secondary mental health services. The included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and an established taxonomy of implementation outcomes.

          Results

          Twenty-three studies from five countries met eligibility criteria. The barriers and facilitators identified in the review were mainly on the organisational level, but included some individual-level influences. Facilitators included high feasibility, high fidelity, a strong team structure, sufficient number of staff, support from colleagues, staff training, supervision, the presence of an implementation champion and adaptability of the intervention. Barriers to implementation include high staff turnover, staff shortage, lack of supervision, lack of support for staff delivering the programme, staff struggling with their increased workload, a lack of senior clinical leadership, and programme content perceived as irrelevant.

          Conclusion

          The findings from this research suggest promising strategies to improve implementation of self-management interventions. For services providing support for people with SMI, organisational culture should be considered, as well as the adaptability of interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

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

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

            Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

              An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                27 February 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 2
                : e0282157
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Division of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2097-1114
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9866-788X
                Article
                PONE-D-22-15504
                10.1371/journal.pone.0282157
                9970054
                36848334
                347b1412-2c5e-43de-bba1-454d018caab3
                © 2023 Islam et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 28 May 2022
                : 9 February 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit
                Award Recipient :
                Financial support was provided by the Division of Psychiatry at University College London for data analysis in the forms of EndNote and Eppi-Reviewer subscriptions. RA, SJ and BLE receive salary support from the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No awards or grants were received.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mood Disorders
                Bipolar Disorder
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Schizophrenia
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Psychoses
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mental Health Therapies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mood Disorders
                Depression
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article