Title |
Study protocol: cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a staff training intervention in inpatient mental health rehabilitation units in increasing service users’ engagement in activities
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, August 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-244x-13-216 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Helen Killaspy, Sarah Cook, Tim Mundy, Thomas Craig, Frank Holloway, Gerard Leavey, Louise Marston, Paul McCrone, Leonardo Koeser, Maurice Arbuthnott, Rumana Z Omar, Michael King |
Abstract |
This study focuses on people with complex and severe mental health problems who require inpatient rehabilitation. The majority have a diagnosis of schizophrenia whose recovery has been delayed due to non-response to first-line treatments, cognitive impairment, negative symptoms and co-existing problems such as substance misuse. These problems contribute to major impairments in social and everyday functioning necessitating lengthy admissions and high support needs on discharge to the community. Engagement in structured activities reduces negative symptoms of psychosis and may lead to improvement in function, but no trials have been conducted to test the efficacy of interventions that aim to achieve this.Methods/design: This study aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a staff training intervention to increase service users' engagement in activities. This is a single-blind, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial involving 40 inpatient mental health rehabilitation units across England. Units are randomised on an equal basis to receive either standard care or a "hands-on", manualised staff training programme comprising three distinct phases (predisposing, enabling and reinforcing) delivered by a small team of psychiatrists, occupational therapists, service users and activity workers. The primary outcome is service user engagement in activities 12 months after randomisation, assessed using a standardised measure. Secondary outcomes include social functioning and costs and cost-effectiveness of care. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 146 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 25 | 17% |
Researcher | 22 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
Other | 28 | 19% |
Unknown | 33 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 39 | 26% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 6% |
Sports and Recreations | 6 | 4% |
Other | 14 | 9% |
Unknown | 45 | 30% |