Aleksandra Matanov1, Philip McNamee2, Syeda Akther3, Nick Barber2, Victoria Bird3. 1. The Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, Queen Mary University of London, NCfMH, London, E13 8SP, UK. a.matanov@qmul.ac.uk. 2. East London NHS Foundation Trust, NCfMH, London, E13 8SP, UK. 3. The Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, Queen Mary University of London, NCfMH, London, E13 8SP, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treating chronic depression represents a significant burden for the NHS, yet there is a lack of evidence-based interventions and research specifically focused on this condition. DIALOG+, a technology-assisted and resource-oriented intervention found effective for people with psychosis, may improve care for this service user group. The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability and relevance of DIALOG+ for the treatment of chronic depression in community-based settings. METHODS: A convenience sample of 16 mental health professionals and 29 service users with chronic depression tested the DIALOG+ intervention in routine community care appointments for 3 months across 3 different mental health NHS Trusts in England. Of these, 15 clinicians and 19 service users were individually interviewed about their experiences. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis by an analytic team which included a service user researcher. RESULTS: Analysis of the combined dataset identified five overarching themes: DIALOG+ Structure; Therapeutic Communication; Reflecting and Monitoring; Empowerment and Powerlessness; and The Impact of Technology. Overall, service users and clinicians were interested in the continued use of DIALOG+ as part of routine care. CONCLUSIONS: DIALOG+ was viewed as acceptable by both service users with chronic depression and their clinicians who work in community care settings, albeit with some caveats. Clinician training required significant improvements to address the issues that were referenced, most notably around support with using technology.
BACKGROUND: Treating chronic depression represents a significant burden for the NHS, yet there is a lack of evidence-based interventions and research specifically focused on this condition. DIALOG+, a technology-assisted and resource-oriented intervention found effective for people with psychosis, may improve care for this service user group. The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability and relevance of DIALOG+ for the treatment of chronic depression in community-based settings. METHODS: A convenience sample of 16 mental health professionals and 29 service users with chronic depression tested the DIALOG+ intervention in routine community care appointments for 3 months across 3 different mental health NHS Trusts in England. Of these, 15 clinicians and 19 service users were individually interviewed about their experiences. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis by an analytic team which included a service user researcher. RESULTS: Analysis of the combined dataset identified five overarching themes: DIALOG+ Structure; Therapeutic Communication; Reflecting and Monitoring; Empowerment and Powerlessness; and The Impact of Technology. Overall, service users and clinicians were interested in the continued use of DIALOG+ as part of routine care. CONCLUSIONS: DIALOG+ was viewed as acceptable by both service users with chronic depression and their clinicians who work in community care settings, albeit with some caveats. Clinician training required significant improvements to address the issues that were referenced, most notably around support with using technology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic depression; Community mental health; DIALOG+; Digital intervention; Solution-focused
Authors: Roger S McIntyre; Marie-Josée Filteau; Lawrence Martin; Simon Patry; Andre Carvalho; Danielle S Cha; Maxime Barakat; Maia Miguelez Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Peter Fonagy; Felicitas Rost; Jo-Anne Carlyle; Susan McPherson; Rachel Thomas; R M Pasco Fearon; David Goldberg; David Taylor Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Jim Van Os; A Carlo Altamura; Julio Bobes; Jes Gerlach; Jonathan S E Hellewell; Siegfried Kasper; Dieter Naber; Philippe Robert Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: A Jobst; E-L Brakemeier; A Buchheim; F Caspar; P Cuijpers; K P Ebmeier; P Falkai; R Jan van der Gaag; W Gaebel; S Herpertz; T Kurimay; L Sabaß; K Schnell; E Schramm; C Torrent; D Wasserman; J Wiersma; F Padberg Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Y Feng; C Roukas; M Russo; S Repišti; A Džubur Kulenović; L Injac Stevović; J Konjufca; S Markovska-Simoska; L Novotni; I Ristić; E Smajić-Mešević; F Uka; M Zebić; L Vončina; A Bobinac; N Jovanović Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 7.156
Authors: Philip McNamee; Aleksandra Matanov; Lauren Jerome; Sally Kerry; Neil Walker; Yan Feng; Andrew Molodynski; Shonagh Scott; Latha Guruvaiah; Sue Collinson; Rose McCabe; John Geddes; Stefan Priebe; Victoria Bird Journal: Trials Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.279