BackgroundMany people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory.MethodsThe PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy.ResultsKey components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected.ConclusionsAdditional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial.Trial registrationISRCTN95702682, 26 October 2017.

Background A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised collection of outcomes to be collected and reported in all trials within a research area. A COS can reduce reporting bias and facilitate evidence synthesis. This is currently unavailable for use in community-based bipolar trials. This research aimed to develop such a COS, with input from a full range of stakeholders. Methods A co-production approach was used throughout. A longlist of outcomes was derived from focus groups with people with a bipolar diagnosis and carers, interviews with healthcare professionals and a rapid review of outcomes listed in bipolar trials on the Cochrane database. An expert panel with personal and/or professional experience of bipolar participated in a modified Delphi process and the COS was finalised at a consensus meeting. Results Fifty participants rated the importance of each outcome. Sixty-six outcomes were included in Round 1 of the questionnaire; 13 outcomes were added by Round 1 participants and were rated in Round 2. Seventy-six percent of participants (n = 38) returned to Round 2 and 60 outcomes, including 4 outcomes added by participants in Round 1, received a rating of 7–9 by >70% and 1–3 by <25% of the sample. Fourteen participants finalised a COS containing 11 outcomes at the consensus meeting: personal recovery; connectedness; clinical recovery of bipolar symptoms; mental health and wellbeing; physical health; self-monitoring and management; medication effects; quality of life; service outcomes; experience of care; and use of coercion. Conclusions This COS is recommended for use in community-based bipolar trials to ensure stakeholder-relevant outcomes, facilitate data synthesis, and transparent reporting. The COS includes guidance notes for each outcome to allow the identification of suitable measurement instruments. Further validation is recommended for use with a wide range of communities and to achieve standardised measurement.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

Background There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. Aims This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. Method We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012–2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. Results The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14–68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5–20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. Conclusions The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.