10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Practitioners’ experience of the working alliance in a blended cognitive–behavioural therapy intervention for depression: qualitative study of barriers and facilitators

      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

          Background

          Digital technologies have been widely acknowledged as a potentially useful resource for increasing mental healthcare access. The working alliance is a key influence on outcomes in conventional psychotherapy, but little is known about therapists’ experiences of forming an effective working alliance in blended interventions that involve in-person psychotherapy and a digital programme.

          Aims

          To investigate psychological well-being practitioners’ (PWPs’) experiences of the working alliance in a trial of blended cognitive–behavioural therapy (b-CBT) for depression. Trial registration ISRCTN12388725.

          Method

          Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 PWPs who delivered b-CBT in a two-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of b-CBT compared with face-to-face CBT. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

          Results

          Participants reported four facilitating factors when building and maintaining a working alliance in b-CBT: having more time to deliver treatment, access to a wider toolkit, capacity to tailor components of b-CBT and receiving appropriate training and support. Participants also identified four barriers to building and maintaining a working alliance: time and resource constraints, usability challenges, limited flexibility to tailor the digital programme to patients’ needs and lack of confidence in delivering b-CBT.

          Conclusions

          Our study is the first specifically to investigate practitioners’ perceived facilitators and barriers to forming a working alliance in b-CBT for depression. Findings suggest that PWPs’ experiences of the working alliance can be improved by: accounting for the time required to deliver b-CBT in service workflows to reduce time pressures; increasing opportunities to tailor the digital programme through offering transdiagnostic tools and adaptable features; and providing appropriate b-CBT training and technical support.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • 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

            Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines

            Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research community, with some arguing that it is an inappropriate or unnecessary step within the goals of qualitative analysis. Yet ICR assessment can yield numerous benefits for qualitative studies, which include improving the systematicity, communicability, and transparency of the coding process; promoting reflexivity and dialogue within research teams; and helping convince diverse audiences of the trustworthiness of the analysis. Few guidelines exist to help researchers negotiate the assessment of ICR in qualitative analysis. The current article explains what ICR is, reviews common arguments for and against its incorporation in qualitative analysis and offers guidance on the practical elements of performing an ICR assessment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Digital Mental Health and COVID-19: Using Technology Today to Accelerate the Curve on Access and Quality Tomorrow

              As interest in and use of telehealth during the COVID-19 global pandemic increase, the potential of digital health to increase access and quality of mental health is becoming clear. Although the world today must “flatten the curve” of spread of the virus, we argue that now is the time to “accelerate and bend the curve” on digital health. Increased investments in digital health today will yield unprecedented access to high-quality mental health care. Focusing on personal experiences and projects from our diverse authorship team, we share selected examples of digital health innovations while acknowledging that no single piece can discuss all the impressive global efforts past and present. Exploring the success of telehealth during the present crisis and how technologies like apps can soon play a larger role, we discuss the need for workforce training, high-quality evidence, and digital equity among other factors critical for bending the curve further.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJPsych Open
                BJPsych Open
                BJO
                BJPsych Open
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2056-4724
                July 2022
                25 July 2022
                : 8
                : 4
                : e142
                Affiliations
                [1]Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [2]Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London , UK
                [3]School of Psychology, University of Sussex , Brighton, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Asmae Doukani. Email: asmae.doukani@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8629-2953
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7370-8788
                Article
                S2056472422005464
                10.1192/bjo.2022.546
                9344874
                35876079
                c768d85c-29b1-4663-881a-0434ffe7ec3f
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 February 2022
                : 27 June 2022
                : 28 June 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, References: 36, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Papers

                working alliance,mental health practitioner,blended cognitive–behavioural therapy,qualitative research,e-mental health

                Comments

                Comment on this article