No abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a negative impact upon individual's psychological wellbeing. This case study series aimed to use a mental health prevention and promotion approach to promote positive emotional wellbeing and prevent deterioration of mental health difficulties in individuals who have had Covid-19. 573 individuals, who had recently tested positive for Covid-19, registered across two General Practices (GP), were initially screened, and 409 were contacted and offered psychological support. 9.1% accepted the offer at first but only 3.2% started the sessions. Psychometrics was used within the first and last session but also at a 6-week follow up to measure wellbeing, resiliency, low mood and anxiety. Experience of service questionnaires was also taken. Scores for wellbeing and resiliency increased at a statistically significant level. Scores for anxiety and low mood decreased at a statistically significant level, this was maintained at follow up. Qualitative feedback was positive. This service supports previous findings that mental health prevention and promotion interventions are effective. However, it is important to be mindful that given only 12 individuals finalized the sessions, the power of statistical findings are reduced. Nonetheless, this service is reasonably effective for people with a recent, positive Covid-19 test. Service scope should widen to include those who have struggled with the effects of the pandemic and not just those who received a positive diagnosis.

Background: The deployment of (Trainee) Associate Psychological Practitioners (T/APPs) to deliver brief psychological interventions focusing on preventing mental health deterioration and promoting emotional wellbeing in General Practice settings is a novel development in the North West of England. As the need and demand for psychological practitioners increases, new workforce supply routes are required to meet this growth. Aims: To evaluate the clinical impact and efficacy of the mental health prevention and promotion service, provided by the T/APPs and the acceptability of the role from the perspective of the workforce and the role to T/APPs, patients and services. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used. To evaluate clinical outcomes, patients completed measures of wellbeing (WEMWBS), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7) and resilience (BRS) at the first session, final session and at a 4–6 week follow-up. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted comparing scores from session 1 and session 4, and session 1 and follow-up for each of the four outcome measures. To evaluate acceptability, questionnaires were sent to General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients to gather qualitative and quantitative feedback on their views of the T/APP role. Quantitative responses were collated and summarised. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive summative content analysis to identify themes. Results: T-test analysis revealed clinically and statistically significant reductions in depression and anxiety and elevations in wellbeing and resiliency between session 1 and session 4, and at follow-up. Moderate–large effect sizes were recorded. Acceptability of the T/APP role was established across General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients. Content analysis revealed two main themes: positive feedback and constructive feedback. Positive sub-themes included accessibility of support, type of support, patient benefit and primary care network benefit. Constructive sub-themes included integration of the role and limitations to the support. Conclusions: The introduction of T/APPs into General Practice settings to deliver brief mental health prevention and promotion interventions is both clinically effective and acceptable to patients, General Practice staff and psychology graduates.