Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32677917›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2020

What influences practitioners' readiness to deliver psychological interventions by telephone? A qualitative study of behaviour change using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Cintia L Faija, Janice Connell, Charlotte Welsh, Kerry Ardern, Elinor Hopkin, Judith Gellatly, Kelly Rushton, Claire Fraser, Annie Irvine, Christopher J Armitage and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cintia L FaijaSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Cintia.faija@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6497-9196
Janice ConnellDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Charlotte WelshSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kerry ArdernDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Elinor HopkinSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Judith GellatlySchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kelly RushtonSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Claire FraserSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Annie IrvineDepartment of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, York, Heslington, UK.
Christopher J ArmitageManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paul WilsonAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Karina LovellSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Penny BeeSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1016-20010Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-1016-20010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContemporary health policy is shifting towards remotely delivered care. A growing need to provide effective and accessible services, with maximal population reach has stimulated demand for flexible and efficient service models. The implementation of evidence-based practice has been slow, leaving many services ill equipped to respond to requests for non-face-to-face delivery. To address this translation gap, and provide empirically derived evidence to support large-scale practice change, our study aimed to explore practitioners' perspectives of the factors that enhance the delivery of a NICE-recommended psychological intervention, i.e. guided self-help by telephone (GSH-T), in routine care. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to analyse our data, identify essential behaviour change processes and encourage the successful implementation of remote working in clinical practice.

methodThirty-four psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) from the UK NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services were interviewed. Data were first analysed inductively, with codes cross-matched deductively to the TDF.

resultsAnalysis identified barriers to the delivery, engagement and implementation of GSH-T, within eight domains from the TDF: (i) Deficits in practitioner knowledge, (ii) Sub-optimal practitioner telephone skills, (iii) Practitioners' lack of beliefs in telephone capabilities and self-confidence, (iv) Practitioners' negative beliefs about consequences, (v) Negative emotions, (vi) Professional role expectations (vii) Negative social influences, and (viii) Challenges in the environmental context and resources. A degree of interdependence was observed between the TDF domains, such that improvements in one domain were often reported to confer secondary advantages in another.

conclusionsMultiple TDF domains emerge as relevant to improve delivery of GSH-T; and these domains are theoretically and practically interlinked. A multicomponent approach is recommended to facilitate the shift from in-person to telephone-based service delivery models, and prompt behaviour change at practitioner, patient and service levels. At a minimum, the development of practitioners' telephone skills, an increase in clients' awareness of telephone-based treatment, dilution of negative preconceptions about telephone treatment, and robust service level guidance and standards for implementation are required. This is the first study that provides clear direction on how to improve telephone delivery and optimise implementation, aligning with current mental health policy and service improvement.

Indexed as

Psychosocial InterventionTelephoneHumansProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchGuided self-helpImproving access to psychological servicesMental healthPsychological treatmentPsychological wellbeing practitionersTelephone treatmentTheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID32677917
PMCPMC7364130
OpenAlexW3042742183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.