The feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychological intervention for adults with long-term health conditions and subthreshold depression delivered via community pharmacies: a mixed methods evaluation-the Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST).
Behavioural activation
Community pharmacies
Feasibility study
Long-term conditions
Mental wellbeing
Mixed methods
Multi-morbidity
Psychological intervention
Public health
Subthreshold depression
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Feb 2022
03 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
17
05
2021
accepted:
25
01
2022
entrez:
4
2
2022
pubmed:
5
2
2022
medline:
5
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Adults with long-term health conditions (LTCs) are more likely to experience depressive symptoms which can worsen health outcomes and quality of life, and increase healthcare costs. Subthreshold depression may go undetected and/or untreated. The Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST) explored whether community pharmacies represent a suitable setting to offer brief psychological support to people with LTCs and comorbid subthreshold depression. A feasibility intervention study with a nested mixed methods evaluation was employed. Adults with subthreshold depression and a minimum of one LTC were recruited from community pharmacies/local general practices and offered a brief psychological support intervention ('Enhanced Support Intervention' (ESI)), based on behavioural activation within a Collaborative Care framework. The intervention included up to six sessions supported by pharmacy staff ('ESI facilitators') trained to deliver the ESI within the community pharmacy setting. Recruitment, retention rates and engagement with the ESI were assessed. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with pharmacy staff and study participants, and a focus group with pharmacy staff, explored experiences and acceptability of the study and the ESI. Themes were mapped onto constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Recruitment of ESI participants was challenging and slower than anticipated despite the varied methods of recruitment employed; although, this was useful in identifying barriers and enabling factors for participation. Engagament with the ESI was good with n=17 (71%) recruited participants commencing the ESI. The ESI was found to be acceptable to participants and ESI facilitators. Retention rate at 4 months was good n=20 (87.0%). The main barriers to identifying potential participants for pharmacy staff were lack of time, resources and limited experience in research. The ESI training and support manual were acceptable to ESI facilitators. The ESI and supporting patient workbook were acceptable to people with LTCs and subthreshold depression. Community pharmacies were viewed as an acceptable setting in which to deliver preventative brief psychological support to people with LTCs at risk of depression. This feasibility study provided important data to inform the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial in this setting and highlighted important considerations for future pharmacy-based research. ISRCTN11290592.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Adults with long-term health conditions (LTCs) are more likely to experience depressive symptoms which can worsen health outcomes and quality of life, and increase healthcare costs. Subthreshold depression may go undetected and/or untreated. The Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST) explored whether community pharmacies represent a suitable setting to offer brief psychological support to people with LTCs and comorbid subthreshold depression.
METHODS
METHODS
A feasibility intervention study with a nested mixed methods evaluation was employed. Adults with subthreshold depression and a minimum of one LTC were recruited from community pharmacies/local general practices and offered a brief psychological support intervention ('Enhanced Support Intervention' (ESI)), based on behavioural activation within a Collaborative Care framework. The intervention included up to six sessions supported by pharmacy staff ('ESI facilitators') trained to deliver the ESI within the community pharmacy setting. Recruitment, retention rates and engagement with the ESI were assessed. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with pharmacy staff and study participants, and a focus group with pharmacy staff, explored experiences and acceptability of the study and the ESI. Themes were mapped onto constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Recruitment of ESI participants was challenging and slower than anticipated despite the varied methods of recruitment employed; although, this was useful in identifying barriers and enabling factors for participation. Engagament with the ESI was good with n=17 (71%) recruited participants commencing the ESI. The ESI was found to be acceptable to participants and ESI facilitators. Retention rate at 4 months was good n=20 (87.0%). The main barriers to identifying potential participants for pharmacy staff were lack of time, resources and limited experience in research. The ESI training and support manual were acceptable to ESI facilitators. The ESI and supporting patient workbook were acceptable to people with LTCs and subthreshold depression.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Community pharmacies were viewed as an acceptable setting in which to deliver preventative brief psychological support to people with LTCs at risk of depression. This feasibility study provided important data to inform the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial in this setting and highlighted important considerations for future pharmacy-based research.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN11290592.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35115052
doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-00992-7
pii: 10.1186/s40814-022-00992-7
pmc: PMC8812235
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
27Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K02325X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
pubmed: 8628042
Prev Med. 2019 Jul;124:98-109
pubmed: 30959070
BMJ Open. 2014 Aug 12;4(8):e005764
pubmed: 25116456
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;205(4):268-74
pubmed: 25274315
J Affect Disord. 2013 Jul;149(1-3):14-22
pubmed: 23545062
Ann Fam Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;5(6):503-10
pubmed: 18025487
BMC Nurs. 2016 Dec 7;15:71
pubmed: 27980453
Psychosom Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;64(2):258-66
pubmed: 11914441
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-57
pubmed: 9881538
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 01;14:217
pubmed: 25085447
J Affect Disord. 2004 Apr;79(1-3):71-9
pubmed: 15023482
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Oct;53(7):943-55
pubmed: 11522139
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
Br J Psychol. 1992 Feb;83 ( Pt 1):97-111
pubmed: 1559146
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jan 19;20(1):16
pubmed: 30660195
JAMA. 2017 Feb 21;317(7):728-737
pubmed: 28241357
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 6;12:CD011207
pubmed: 31808563
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Jun;21(37):1-132
pubmed: 28681717
J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Jul;12(7):439-45
pubmed: 9229283
BMC Fam Pract. 2017 Jul 12;18(1):77
pubmed: 28701184
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 May 29;5:71
pubmed: 31161045
Health Expect. 2018 Apr;21(2):409-428
pubmed: 29114971