Improving Mental Health in England: A Complex Intervention

Complex Intervention overview

Task 1: Choose a current complex public health intervention and explain why it is a complex intervention. This must be related to positive ageing or mental health, can be in any country you wish

Many health and social care services and other policy sectors that have a bearing on health use complex interventions. Individual and social treatments are given and assessed in various ways (Skivington et al,2021). A novel medical treatment, a restructured healthcare programme, or a shift in welfare policy are all examples. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) issued complex intervention development and evaluation guidelines in 2000 and amended them in 2006 (Ma et al,2020). They are still frequently used, and there is more advice on particular areas of the research process today. Despite still some critical conceptual, methodological, and theoretical advancements since 2006. The National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) have commissioned a new framework that incorporates these achievements (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020).

Promoting mental health in the whole community is a primary goal of public mental health promotion. Currently, in the United Kingdom, the strategy is to collaborate with several (Duncan et al,2021). Many of the risk factors for poor mental health are outside the realm of health services, thus public mental health programmes try to address them. A lack of social mobility may be caused by a variety of things, including poverty, debt, unemployment, loneliness, domestic violence, sedentary behaviour, and other forms of maltreatment in personal relationships (Deidda et al,2018). In recent years, the theory of change (ToC) has gained traction as a new method to think about programme design and assessment of global mental health. This has been fueled by a resurgence of interest from development funders, as well as the difficulties of traditional research methodologies for evaluating complex global mental health initiatives. ToC is a theory-driven method for intervention creation and assessment that makes the causal pathways that contribute to a program's result clear (Duncan et al,2021). ToC has been effectively employed in interagency planning for at-risk adolescents in the United States, as well as in the assessment of numerous government projects in the United Kingdom.

Task 2: What are the relevant contextual factors? (for example, geography, socio-economic determinants

According to (Rosas and Knight,2019), there has been a long history of mental health concerns in England. Approximately one in six persons are afflicted by mental health disorders, according to ONS statistics. Because this impacts the whole country's development and progress, this is an issue of considerable concern (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020). The cost of mental health treatments has also been high, thus it is critical that this complicated issue be addressed at the appropriate time. An English government news release said that 500 million Euro will be provided to help those with mental health concerns, and this proposal is based on that statement. Consequently, this has had a significant impact on the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. As a result, addressing the many contextual issues responsible for the decreasing mental health quality of the people of the nation is critical (Duncan et al,2021). Theory of Change (ToC) might enhance all four stages of the MRC guideline for the assessment of complex interventions in various low - income and high environments, according to our research. There are a number of ways that this framework can be used to help: it can help with (1) developing an intervention by ensuring that all stakeholders are on board, (2) determining whether or not it is feasible, and (3) determining whether or not it can be implemented. Additionally, it can help with (4) making sure that intervention strategies and results are relevant (Skivington et al,2021) There are many interacting components, causal threads and feedback loops in complex health treatments, which might lead to unexpected effects. Even basic interventions might be complicated by the fact that they can be executed in various areas with diverse governance arrangements. Focuses on critical goals while allowing for versatility in how it is accomplished across diverse situations. PRIME's complex interventions were district-level mental health strategies in Ethiopia, India, Nepal, South Africa, and Uganda (Pieh et al,2021) . Due to a lack of data, comparing service availability to the requirement to ascertain where public mental health interventions have been widely used and where there may be room for improvement is difficult. The provision of services in an efficient and equitable manner, as well as the exchange of knowledge about what is useful and for whom, would be impossible without this (Banks and Xu,2020). For this reason, policymakers and commissioners need to know more about the many kinds of community-based interventions available for public mental health

Task 3: What are the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen complex intervention?

McGill et al,2020 claim that persons in developed countries are more likely to suffer from mental health issues than those in underdeveloped or emerging countries. As a result, quality of life is a big priority in this country since people are well-off and enjoy a higher level of living. As a result, they begin to compare themselves to other members of the target demographic, which results in a feeling of uneasiness. As a result, they are more likely to experience despair and anxiety as a result of this comparison (Pieh et al,2021).

Strengths: It aids in the explanation of both how and why change occurs. It might be quite simple or more difficult depending on the situation. It does not adhere to a strict 'one size fits all' structure. Encourages non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others to really consider what their initiative is attempting to accomplish and what assumptions they are making. It may assist you in making changes to your project that will raise the likelihood of its success. It may aid in the identification of intermediate outcomes (Proto and Quintana-Domeque,2021). It helps organisations to think more deeply about their professional position and their organisation as a result of this process. One of the most significant strengths highlighted within the programme was its ability to draw attention to the issue of mental health across all segments of the community. Different self-help measures were taught to participants, including cognitive behavioural therapy, how to manage their mood and anxiety, and how to overcome depression, as part of the programme (Duncan et al,2021).

Weakness: With arrows linking boxes in ways that could never be feasible, it might wind up being overly simple, overly convoluted, or plain incorrect Funders aren't always aware of its importance. It has the potential to produce unexpected results. The reduction of context factors to variables is a conceptual restriction of structural equation modelling and other statistical approaches (Duncan et al,2021). With regards to theory-driven inquiry, ToC seeks to understand 'what works for whom and in what contexts'. Some of the intricacy of the context and other elements that co-variate across contexts may be obscured by a reductionist statistical approach (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020).

Evaluation plan

Task 1: What is your research perspective?

It is possible to get a better knowledge of the relationship between an intervention and a patient's health problem by using a new study framework developed by the Medical Research Council (MRC). Sophisticated healthcare issues need complex solutions. Although well-founded treatments have been established, a variety of problems have arisen, necessitating a review of the strategy's quality, effectiveness, and efficacy (Proto and Quintana-Domeque,2021). The TOC programme, which attempts to improve existing mental health evaluation and management in primary health care settings in England, is the topic of this research, which tries to investigate its efficacy. Using the MRC framework as a foundation, this research assesses the procedure from start to finish. It is possible to think of this intervention's effectiveness in terms of various levels of approaches, including the disease itself; the patients; the medical support provided by professionals and practitioners; health services and facilities; social factors and policies to support this intervention; and so on (Pieh et al,2021). In order to determine the intervention's progressive efficacy, each of these aspects must be considered since it may either promote or degrade the intervention as time goes on. As an example, mental health awareness and promotion at the professional level in society is frequently neutralised and faces difficulties owing to the societal idea of stigma. Defining and comprehending a problem's root causes are critical to determining its efficacy and scope (Duncan et al,2021).

Task 2: What is your choice of research design and why? (RCT, observational, cohort, etc.

PRIME ToC development includes a cross-country workshop, two to four workshops in each of the five PRIME nations, and a revision of the cross-country ToC. As a consequence, there was a ToC map for each nation in addition to a ToC for the whole continent (Duncan et al,2021). As a result of previous PRIME consortium work, the ToCs were heavily affected by one another and built around a draught framework outlining the three levels of the health system where PRIME intended to intervene. We discovered that ToC workshops helped us create a coherent ToC map that served as the foundation for a personalised mental health treatment strategy (Proto and Quintana-Domeque,2021). This program's challenges and enablers were well-articulated thanks to the participation of district-level health planners and service providers, mental health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and district-level health planners and management throughout ToC development. Having stakeholders present ensured their buy-in since they were able to help conceptualise and identify possible issues before a formal implementation plan was developed. By engaging stakeholders early, Banks and Xu (2020) found that it was easier to create rapport with stakeholders who supplied extensive contextual information, therefore making it easier to construct a counselling intervention for prevalent mental illnesses in Zimbabwe. As a result, the intervention's chances of success improved. It is preferable if the ToC is owned by all stakeholders, however this is not always the case. The PRIME ToCs are the closest thing to elite ownership that we have. Ownership of the programme is held by a small number of leaders, including community members, who are accountable for executing it (Pieh et al,2021). This is attributable to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: Due to the amount of stakeholders participated in the workshops in nations, lengthy engagement was difficult to achieve; (2) PRIME researchers finalised the ToC after the session; (3) hierarchies within the health care made participation in the workshops unequal (despite our efforts to offset this); and (4) there were no beneficiaries of either the programme who addressed the ToC workshop (Pieh et al,2021).

Task 3: What range of factors will you choose to measure in your evaluation?

Study after study in low and middle-income countries revealed that more than 70 percent of the 115 epidemiological studies analysed indicated favourable relationships between various poverty indices and common mental illnesses (Banks and Xu,2020) According on the kind of poverty metric used16, the strength of the link differed. In several research, the link between poor income and mental illness has been traced back to debt. There was a correlation between the amount of debt persons had and their likelihood of developing a mental condition, regardless of their income or other sociodemographic factors (Proto and Quintana-Domeque,2021). Depressive and anxiety disorders are more frequent in those with poor educational attainment or who are unemployed or underemployed. For elderly people, social isolation is also a risk factor. In women, the social class gradient is more pronounced than in males when it comes to the distribution of common mental diseases (Deidda et al,2018).

The spread of psychological wellbeing in Europe has also been studied by epidemiologists. The Eurobarometer study in 2002 found considerable differences in the mental health of the population across nations and between men and women in the same country (Proto and Quintana-Domeque,2021). People with lower socioeconomic status and less social support have worse mental health. There is a symbiotic link between mental illness and poverty, with mental illness increasing the likelihood of poverty and therefore the likelihood of mental illness (Banks and Xu,2020). Inequities in social distribution begin to appear before the age of twenty-one. Depression and anxiety were found to be 2.5 times more common in young individuals aged 10 to 15 who were from poor socioeconomic backgrounds than in young people from high socioeconomic backgrounds, according to a literature review. Socioeconomic situation has been demonstrated to be negatively related to children's emotional and behavioural problems as early as three and five years of age (Pieh et al,2021). The other two specialist psychiatric services (Community Mental Health Teams – CMHT) were for those with more serious problems, one dealing with severe and complex non-psychotic disorders such as severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and personality disorder, and the other with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. Recruitment was carried out by service providers that used a wide variety of inclusion criteria in attempt to catch as many different types of mental health issues as feasible (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020). People who were having acute episodes of their mental health problem, those who were not well enough to participate, those who had a known recent investigative history, and those who couldn't speak English or provide permission were all excluded. When conducting clinical trials, these quantitative and quantitative outcome measures are used as a fundamental strategy for planning outcomes and evaluating how an intervention affects them. A major measure and numerous subsidiary measures are used in this research, however the number of each changes depending on the study's objectives (O'Connor et al,2021).

Task 4: How will you assess cost-effectiveness?

Economic results are taken into account while conducting randomised control trials that include interventional evaluations. Data on the usage of medical assets and reserves, as well as the costs associated with such assets and reserves, may be readily accessible (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020). The costs of many complicated procedures may be estimated with a decent degree of accuracy, but estimating the costs of unexpected clinical occurrences is more difficult. Cost estimates are aided by the intervention's results. Latest intervention tactics are frequently more costly than the previous and current ones. Customer happiness is key in this case, since it is used to justify higher costs and the inclusion of newer programmes. The most recent strategy for the complex intervention's value addition may be evaluated using a cost-effectiveness evaluation. In randomised control trials, the follow-up period is sufficient to assess the intervention's cost and utility (O'Connor et al,2021). As each of these sessions has its own unique benefits, outcomes, and costs, the commercial findings of a study become clear and plausible when the resources used in the study are recorded and compared to other procedures such as providing therapy sessions through clinical visits, home visits, or telephonic sessions. Another important method of determining the intervention's cost effectiveness is to compare the anticipated costs with the actual expenses. The anticipated costs of an intervention in a clinical study are often made clear and simplified for easy comprehension (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020).

Task 5: Who are the relevant stakeholders and why are they important to include?

An intervention's success or failure depends on how and why it's implemented, as well as who implements it and who benefits from it . Participating in ToC workshops with a variety of stakeholders makes it possible for all stakeholders to work together to co-develop the ToC and demonstrate each step in the causal pathway (O'Connor et al,2021). The social and cultural obstacles that prevent people from acknowledging mental and psychological illnesses are a huge obstacle. Diverse points of view and cooperative efforts can be investigated and explored better when more people are involved in the research process (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020). Involvement from a wide range of stakeholders helps to keep the overall strategy connected through collaborative efforts. A large-scale action necessitates a large-scale system and network of people who can give true and equally dependable data and information. An existing ToC can be used to guide the development of ToCs for related programmes. There were many similarities between the PRIME ToC and those of other mental health programmes, such as the Friendship Bench in Zimbabwe and the RISE initiative in Ethiopia. Heuristic devices derived from ToCs for one programme can be applied to other programmes. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the ToC is properly adapted to the new environment by gathering all relevant additional context and stakeholder input (Deidda et al,2018). This finding leads us to believe that there is now potential for more collaborative and successful collaboration involving stakeholders in mental health and the services they provide. Interventions focused on children and young adults were likewise eliminated. However, parental interventions were included (O'Connor et al,2021). Although these publications continue to be extensively utilised and complemented by a variety of more thorough instructions on particular elements of the research process, numerous substantial conceptual, methodological and theoretical advancements have taken place since 2006 (Sagar-Ouriaghli et al,2020). There is a new framework that includes these accomplishments from the National Institutes of Health (NIHR), and the Medical Research Council. Using the framework, researchers intend to collaborate with stakeholders to identify the most significant concerns in complicated therapies and plan and conduct research from a range of perspectives and methodologies (Duncan et al,2021).

Reference

Duncan, F., Baskin, C., McGrath, M., Coker, J.F., Lee, C., Dykxhoorn, J., Adams, E.A., Gnani, S., Lafortune, L., Kirkbride, J.B. and Kaner, E., 2021. Community interventions for improving adult mental health: mapping local policy and practice in England. BMC public health, 21(1), pp.1-14.

Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S.A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J.M., Boyd, K.A., Craig, N., French, D.P., McIntosh, E. and Petticrew, M., 2021. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. bmj, 374.

Ma, S., Yu, H., Liang, N., Zhu, S., Li, X., Robinson, N. and Liu, J., 2020. Components of complex interventions for healthcare: A narrative synthesis of qualitative studies. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medical Sciences, 7(2), pp.181-188.

Deidda, M., Boyd, K.A., Minnis, H., Donaldson, J., Brown, K., Boyer, N.R. and McIntosh, E., 2018. Protocol for the economic evaluation of a complex intervention to improve the mental health of maltreated infants and children in foster care in the UK (The BeST? services trial). BMJ open, 8(3), p.e020066.

Rosas, S. and Knight, E., 2019. Evaluating a complex health promotion intervention: case application of three systems methods. Critical Public Health, 29(3), pp.337-352.

McGill, E., Marks, D., Er, V., Penney, T., Petticrew, M. and Egan, M., 2020. Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS medicine, 17(11), p.e1003368.

O'Connor, R.C., Wetherall, K., Cleare, S., McClelland, H., Melson, A.J., Niedzwiedz, C.L., O'Carroll, R.E., O'Connor, D.B., Platt, S., Scowcroft, E. and Watson, B., 2021. Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 218(6), pp.326-333.

Banks, J. and Xu, X., 2020. The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown during the COVID?19 pandemic in the UK. Fiscal Studies, 41(3), pp.685-708.

Pieh, C., Budimir, S., Delgadillo, J., Barkham, M., Fontaine, J.R. and Probst, T., 2021. Mental health during COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Psychosomatic medicine, 83(4), pp.328-337.

Proto, E. and Quintana-Domeque, C., 2021. COVID-19 and mental health deterioration by ethnicity and gender in the UK. PloS one, 16(1), p.e0244419.

Jones, N., Whybrow, D. and Coetzee, R., 2018. UK military doctors; stigma, mental health and help-seeking: a comparative cohort study. BMJ Military Health, 164(4), pp.259-266.

Sagar-Ouriaghli, I., Godfrey, E., Graham, S. and Brown, J.S., 2020. Improving mental health help-seeking behaviours for male students: a framework for developing a complex intervention. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(14), p.4965.

O'Cathain, A., Croot, L., Duncan, E., Rousseau, N., Sworn, K., Turner, K.M., Yardley, L. and Hoddinott, P., 2019. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ open, 9(8), p.e029954.