'I didn't know what to expect': Exploring patient perspectives to identify targets for change to improve telephone-delivered psychological interventions.
Anxiety
Common mental health problems
Depression
Guided self-help
IAPT
Mental health
Patient perspective
Psychological wellbeing practitioner
Telephone therapy
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 04 2020
07 04 2020
Historique:
received:
17
12
2019
accepted:
23
03
2020
entrez:
9
4
2020
pubmed:
9
4
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Remote delivery of psychological interventions to meet growing demand has been increasing worldwide. Telephone-delivered psychological treatment has been shown to be equally effective and as satisfactory to patients as face-to-face treatment. Despite robust research evidence, however, obstacles remain to the acceptance of telephone-delivered treatment in practice. This study aimed to explore those issues using a phenomenological approach from a patient perspective to identify areas for change in current provision through the use of theoretically based acceptability and behaviour change frameworks. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews with patients experiencing symptoms of common mental health problems, waiting, receiving or having recently received telephone-delivered psychological treatment via the UK National Health Service's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). The majority of data clustered within five key domains of the TDF (knowledge, skills, cognitive and interpersonal, environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences) and mapped to all constructs of the TFA (affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, self-efficacy, burden, opportunity costs, and perceived effectiveness). Themes highlighted that early stages of treatment can be affected by lack of patient knowledge and understanding, reservations about treatment efficacy, and practical obstacles such as absent non-verbal communication, which is deemed important in the development of therapeutic alliance. Yet post-treatment, patients can reflect more positively, and report gaining benefit from treatment. However, despite this, many patients say that if they were to return for future treatment, they would choose to see a practitioner face-to-face. Using a combination of theoretically underpinned models has allowed the identification of key targets for change. Addressing knowledge deficits to shift attitudes, highlighting the merits of telephone delivered treatment and addressing skills and practical issues may increase acceptability of, and engagement with, telephone-delivered treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Remote delivery of psychological interventions to meet growing demand has been increasing worldwide. Telephone-delivered psychological treatment has been shown to be equally effective and as satisfactory to patients as face-to-face treatment. Despite robust research evidence, however, obstacles remain to the acceptance of telephone-delivered treatment in practice. This study aimed to explore those issues using a phenomenological approach from a patient perspective to identify areas for change in current provision through the use of theoretically based acceptability and behaviour change frameworks.
METHODS
Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews with patients experiencing symptoms of common mental health problems, waiting, receiving or having recently received telephone-delivered psychological treatment via the UK National Health Service's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).
RESULTS
The majority of data clustered within five key domains of the TDF (knowledge, skills, cognitive and interpersonal, environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences) and mapped to all constructs of the TFA (affective attitude, ethicality, intervention coherence, self-efficacy, burden, opportunity costs, and perceived effectiveness). Themes highlighted that early stages of treatment can be affected by lack of patient knowledge and understanding, reservations about treatment efficacy, and practical obstacles such as absent non-verbal communication, which is deemed important in the development of therapeutic alliance. Yet post-treatment, patients can reflect more positively, and report gaining benefit from treatment. However, despite this, many patients say that if they were to return for future treatment, they would choose to see a practitioner face-to-face.
CONCLUSIONS
Using a combination of theoretically underpinned models has allowed the identification of key targets for change. Addressing knowledge deficits to shift attitudes, highlighting the merits of telephone delivered treatment and addressing skills and practical issues may increase acceptability of, and engagement with, telephone-delivered treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32264865
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02564-6
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02564-6
pmc: PMC7137505
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
156Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1016-20010
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Programme Grants for Applied Research
ID : RP-PG-1016-20010
Pays : International
Références
Front Public Health Serv Syst Res. 2014;3(1):3
pubmed: 26251771
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):550-60
pubmed: 19390112
J Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr;66(4):394-409
pubmed: 20127795
Ann Behav Med. 2006 Dec;32(3):254-8
pubmed: 17107299
Qual Life Res. 2019 Jan;28(1):73-83
pubmed: 30178430
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
Internet Interv. 2017 Nov 06;11:11-19
pubmed: 30135755
Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):878-89
pubmed: 17804062
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Mar 01;16:56
pubmed: 26932326
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e42916
pubmed: 23028436
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Oct;71(7):1308-1315
pubmed: 20675026
BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Jul 22;8:60
pubmed: 18647396
Heart Lung. 2011 Mar-Apr;40(2):139-46
pubmed: 20561852
Int J Clin Pharm. 2011 Dec;33(6):1028-35
pubmed: 22083724
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;23(4):318-27
pubmed: 22026487
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):883
pubmed: 16935946
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Jun;25(5-6):285-296
pubmed: 29117458
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
J Affect Disord. 2020 Jan 1;260:514-526
pubmed: 31539688
Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182-99
pubmed: 12689739
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;53(12):1298-1307.e2
pubmed: 25457928
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;3(2):171-8
pubmed: 26851330
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 9;19(1):686
pubmed: 31597555