Evaluation of a training program to support the implementation of a community pharmacist-led support service for people living with severe and persistent mental illness

Experiences of goal planning in Australian community pharmacy settings for people experiencing mental illness: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Person-centred goal planning is increasingly being incorporated into healthcare interventions. People experiencing severe and persistent mental illnesses (SPMIs) have high levels of co-occurring health conditions, reducing their life expectancy when compared with the general population. As medications are commonly used in the treatment of SPMIs, community pharmacists are well-placed to support the health and wellbeing of this population.

OBJECTIVES

To examine pharmacists' and service users' experiences of goal planning as a component of a community pharmacy-based health intervention for people experiencing SPMIs (PharMIbridge intervention).

METHODS

This study utilised a qualitative exploratory approach with an interpretive description method. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with community pharmacists (n = 16) and service user participants (n = 26) who had participated in pharmacist support services for people experiencing SPMIs (PharMIbridge intervention).

RESULTS

Four themes relating to goal planning were identified. First, goal planning provided purpose and motivation for participation in the intervention. Planning realistic goals was important but often challenging. Both pharmacists and service users highlighted the relational aspects of goal planning and how strong relationships supported positive behaviour change and outcomes. Finally, individualised and flexible approaches were important aspects of the intervention, ensuring goals were meaningful to service users.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study identified positive outcomes from the inclusion of goal-planning processes in a community pharmacy-based health intervention. Further research regarding tools, strategies or training that could support future goal-planning interventions in primary healthcare is needed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The PharMIbridge randomised controlled trial research team included lived experience members and was overseen by an expert panel that included members with a lived experience of mental illness and representatives from key organisations. The training provided to pharmacists was co-designed and co-delivered by the researchers and lived experience representatives, and pharmacists were supported by lived experience mentors. Service user participants were invited to participate in the interviews through a number of pathways (e.g., at the completion of the intervention, flyers). Those interested were provided with the full study participant information and provided with a $30 gift voucher at the conclusion of the interview.

Community Pharmacists' Role in Reducing the Incidence of Cardiometabolic Adverse Drug Events in Schizophrenia: Insights from Mental Health Professionals

Background and Objectives: Schizophrenia, a debilitating mental illness, is often associated with significant physical health risks. Many second-generation antipsychotics increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Community pharmacists are highly accessible and could play a role in monitoring cardiometabolic adverse drug events in people with schizophrenia. However, it remains uncertain whether mental health professionals perceive this as valuable. This study aimed to explore the opinions of mental healthcare professionals regarding the role of community pharmacists in reducing the incidence of cardiometabolic adverse events in people with schizophrenia and their integration into a multidisciplinary mental health team. Materials and Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian psychiatrists, mental health nurses and mental health pharmacists. Transcription of the interviews underwent thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Results: Eleven mental healthcare professionals from metropolitan and regional areas across Australia were interviewed, leading to the identification of five overarching themes. These themes encompassed the following aspects: the benefits of community pharmacists' involvement in managing cardiometabolic adverse drug events in people with schizophrenia, improving communication pathways with community pharmacists, defining roles and responsibilities for monitoring cardiometabolic parameters and managing adverse cardiometabolic drug events, fostering collaboration between community pharmacists and mental health care professionals, and recognising the acceptance of community pharmacists' integration within a multidisciplinary team. Mental health professionals believed that community pharmacists could play a role in reducing the incidence of cardiometabolic adverse events in schizophrenia. However, they underscored the need for enhanced communication and collaboration pathways with other healthcare professionals, emphasised the importance of more comprehensive mental health first aid training, and identified potential barriers for community pharmacists such as remuneration, workload, and staff resources. Conclusions: Mental health professionals acknowledged the benefits of incorporating community pharmacists into multidisciplinary teams as a strategy to reduce the incidence of adverse events among individuals with schizophrenia. They recognise the competence of community pharmacists in monitoring cardiometabolic adverse events. However, these professionals have also highlighted specific perceived barriers to the complete integration of community pharmacists within these teams. Notably, there are concerns related to remuneration, staff resources, time constraints, acceptance by other healthcare professionals and patients, and the need for improved communication pathways. Addressing these barriers and providing targeted training could facilitate the valuable inclusion of community pharmacists in the comprehensive care of people with schizophrenia.

Refining a taxonomy of goals planned between mental health consumers and community pharmacists

BACKGROUND

People living with severe and persistent mental illnesses are more likely to experience co-morbid health conditions. Health-related behavior change can be promoted by the use of goal planning within community pharmacy settings.

OBJECTIVES

To trial and refine a recently developed taxonomy to categorize goals co-designed between community pharmacists and people living with severe and persistent mental illnesses. This study also compared the data to the previously published taxonomy data to determine if the taxonomy could be applied across a range of mental health conditions.

METHODS

The published goal taxonomy was refined using data from a cluster randomized controlled trial (PharMIbridge). Community pharmacists provided an individualized support service using goal planning with people living with severe and persistent mental illnesses. Goals were categorized using the existing taxonomy and inconsistencies were used to modify and refine the taxonomy. Additionally, participant characteristics and categorization of goals were compared with results from the previous study.

RESULTS

512 goals were reported by 158 consumer participants and categorized into five domains that included a diverse range of health behaviors (e.g., relationships, diet). Minor refinements to the taxonomy were made by replacing, adding or removing categories/descriptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant overlap between the goals of participants and the existing taxonomy was found, supporting the application of the taxonomy across different mental health conditions.

Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health. This review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered.

SEARCH METHODS

We developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months. When MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects. Only one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. Four studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.