An online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar experiences: the IMPART multiple case study

Abstract

Background Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of eHealth Self-management Interventions in Patients With Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Although eHealth self-management interventions have the potential to improve chronic disease management, successful implementation in routine clinical practice is rare [ 68 , 69 ]. The main challenges in implementing and utilizing eHealth include user acceptance, standards and interoperability, regulations, ensuring cost-effectiveness and sustainability, and the organization and implementation environment, as discussed in turn below.…”

Scientific Publication Patterns of Interactive Mobile Technologies for Psychological, Social, Medical and Business Interventions for Mental and Physical Health: Bibliometric Analysis

“…[28]indicatedthatautisticchildrenexperiencesignificantlyhigher online safety risks and poorer well-being. Lobban et al [8], [9] focused on critical factorsthathaveanimpactonstaff'suseofonlineself-managementtoolsfor relatives of patients with psychosis or bipolar disorder. A similar study on web-based selfmanagement intervention to reduce stress among relatives of patients with psychosis or bipolarwasconductedbyLobbanetal.…”

“…Recentstudiesonusinginteractivemobiletechnologiesinvariousfieldsindicatedits significantimpactonreceivedoutcomes [1].Technologyincreasesoverallmentaland physicalwell-being [2],enhancesgainingknowledgeandprofessionalcompetencies [3], and provides efficient opportunities to successfully deal with suicide [4], stress [5], addictions [6], [7], psychosis [8], [9], pain [10], cancer [11] etc. Although some studies on technology used in the mentioned fields have been conducted, there still remain unanswered questions.…”

Improving Peer Online Forums (iPOF): protocol for a realist evaluation of peer online mental health forums to inform practice and policy

“…Normative ideas about health may leave some users feeling misunderstood or even bullied, and people in mental distress may be particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of this kind of behaviour 22. Healthcare staff may be reluctant to moderate online forums because of concerns about possible harms and lack of protocols for online working,23 and may be reluctant to recommend specific forums without clearer guidance on criteria by which to make this decision 24…”

“… 22 Healthcare staff may be reluctant to moderate online forums because of concerns about possible harms and lack of protocols for online working, 23 and may be reluctant to recommend specific forums without clearer guidance on criteria by which to make this decision. 24 …”