ArticleDiscover mental health2024
Improving the mental health of farmers: what types of remote support are acceptable, feasible, and improve outcomes? A feasibility RCT.
Article in Discover mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe farming community have high rates of poor mental health, and are relatively 'hard to reach' with mental health services. The aim of this study was therefore to undertake a feasibility RCT, based on two mental health interventions. These were (1) CBT based 'Living Life to the Full for Farming Communities' (LLTTF-F; www.llttf.com ), and (2) a holistic social and emotional support service delivered by the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RSABI). The feasibility was supplemented by process evaluation.
methodsThis feasibility study aimed to recruit 40 individuals from the farming community who were experiencing a common health problem defined as a score of > = 8 on PHQ-9. A snowball approach was used to recruit interested individuals who had an association with farming. An initial telephone call screened for eligibility and obtained consent to randomisation to the two specified interventions, or to a thirdly group receiving a combination of both LLTTF-F and 'Social and emotional support'. Participants were permitted to override the randomised option if they expressed a strong preference before the interventions began.
resultsThirty-two participants provided baseline and three-month data. All three interventions showed positive improvements on PHQ-9 scores as follows: the 'combined intervention' mean baseline score was 18.1 compared to 12.0 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 6.1). 'Social and emotional support' mean baseline score was 11.3 compared to 6.7 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 4.6). 'LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention only' mean baseline score was 11.8 compared to 4.5 at 3-month follow-up (mean change 7.3). The retention rate was 81% at three months. In a sub-group of the LLTTF-F CBT-based intervention online materials were supplemented by telephone guided support. This approach received very positive feedback.
conclusionsRecruitment from the farming community required intense effort, and good engagement can then be retained for at least three months. There is evidence that the interventions used were feasible, and tentative evidence that they had a demonstrable effect on mental wellbeing, with the LLTTFF providing the largest effect on PHQ-9 scores. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN27173711, submitted 25/08/2023, confirmed 22/092023.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.