Conceptual framework on barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care and treatment for women: the MATRIx evidence synthesis

Background

Perinatal mental health difficulties can occur during pregnancy or after birth and mental illness is a leading cause of maternal death. It is therefore important to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing and accessing perinatal mental health care.

Objectives

Our research objective was to develop a conceptual framework of barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care (defined as identification, assessment, care and treatment) to inform perinatal mental health services.

Methods

Two systematic reviews were conducted to synthesise the evidence on: Review 1 barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care; and Review 2 barriers to women accessing perinatal mental health care. Results were used to develop a conceptual framework which was then refined through consultations with stakeholders.

Data sources

Pre-planned searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Review 2 also included Scopus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Review methods

In Review 1, studies were included if they examined barriers or facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care. In Review 2, systematic reviews were included if they examined barriers and facilitators to women seeking help, accessing help and engaging in perinatal mental health care; and they used systematic search strategies. Only qualitative papers were identified from the searches. Results were analysed using thematic synthesis and themes were mapped on to a theoretically informed multi-level model then grouped to reflect different stages of the care pathway.

Results

Review 1 included 46 studies. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as good quality with low risk of bias. Review 2 included 32 systematic reviews. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as having low confidence in the results. Barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care were identified at seven levels: Individual (e.g. beliefs about mental illness); Health professional (e.g. confidence addressing perinatal mental illness); Interpersonal (e.g. relationship between women and health professionals); Organisational (e.g. continuity of carer); Commissioner (e.g. referral pathways); Political (e.g. women's economic status); and Societal (e.g. stigma). These factors impacted on perinatal mental health care at different stages of the care pathway. Results from reviews were synthesised to develop two MATRIx conceptual frameworks of the (1) barriers and (2) facilitators to perinatal mental health care. These provide pictorial representations of 66 barriers and 39 facilitators that intersect across the care pathway and at different levels.

Limitations

In Review 1 only 10% of abstracts were double screened and 10% of included papers methodologically appraised by two reviewers. The majority of reviews included in Review 2 were evaluated as having low (n = 14) or critically low (n = 5) confidence in their results. Both reviews only included papers published in academic journals and written in English.

Conclusions

The MATRIx frameworks highlight the complex interplay of individual and system level factors across different stages of the care pathway that influence women accessing perinatal mental health care and effective implementation of perinatal mental health services.

Recommendations for health policy and practice

These include using the conceptual frameworks to inform comprehensive, strategic and evidence-based approaches to perinatal mental health care; ensuring care is easy to access and flexible; providing culturally sensitive care; adequate funding of services; and quality training for health professionals with protected time to do it.

Future work

Further research is needed to examine access to perinatal mental health care for specific groups, such as fathers, immigrants or those in lower income countries.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO: (R1) CRD42019142854; (R2) CRD42020193107.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR 128068) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers' mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working

Background

Family carers play a central role in supporting people at the end of life, but often suffer detrimental impacts on their own mental health as a result. This project conducted evidence synthesis of research into factors that may affect carers' mental health to help identify ways of maintaining their mental health. It worked closely with a carer Review Advisory Panel to help ensure the findings made sense and were communicated meaningfully from the carers' perspective.

Aim

To present: (1) principles and components that facilitated successful patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project to help inform patient and public involvement in similar projects; (2) recommendations for carer support that were instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Process and principles

Nine Review Advisory Panel meetings including four to five carers, a lay Chair and three researchers were held. Solid 'groundwork' was invested in recruitment and relationship-building prior to meetings, and it was ensured that there was agreement of how to work together and clarification of expectations at the first meeting. Key meeting principles were: having a majority of carers, and a Chair with both carer and patient and public involvement experience, to ensure carer voices remained at the fore substantial researcher representation, including the project lead, to highlight the value placed on Review Advisory Panel meetings flexibility to follow carers' agendas, enabling 'space to talk' and 'space to change' appropriate and prompt carer payment, again emphasising patient and public involvement value to the project. Added general principles were: ongoing training, ample funded time for Review Advisory Panel preparation and ongoing communication outside meetings. COVID moved all meetings online after the first meeting, but the principles were maintained.

Outputs

The project saw an evolution from patient and public involvement consultation to co-production. The main patient and public involvement output was recommendations for supporting carers based on project findings, instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel.

Reflection on successful components and challenges

Five carers (including the Chair) and six researchers responded to questions by e-mail. Analysis by one researcher, aided by two other researchers, was then reviewed by all participants and revised. Both carers and researchers felt the components that made the patient and public involvement work were: (1) a shared sense of purpose of and gains from the Review Advisory Panel; (2) personal gains; (3) mutual commitment and respect; and (4) bridging between academic and lay perspectives, through investment in training, ensuring carers were able to meaningfully comment, and continuous negotiation and compromise. Challenges were that the COVID-induced move from face-to-face to online meetings reduced informality, flexibility, personal connection and non-verbal communication. However, earlier groundwork facilitated group resilience to these challenges. Patient and public involvement representation on the wider Research Management Group proved less successful, flagging the importance of negotiating and defining patient and public involvement roles at all project levels.

Conclusion

The patient and public involvement principles employed, including meeting composition and chairing, and flexibility to follow carers' agendas, appeared to facilitate the evolution from consultation to co-production of carer recommendations, but require further testing. Preconditions for successful remote working should be further investigated, as the different advantages of face-to-face and virtual meetings may be combined through hybrid working. The iterative and responsive working required for genuine co-production may require more flexible patient and public involvement funding models.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO registration 2019 CRD42019130279 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (grant 18/01/01) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model

BACKGROUND

Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma.

REVIEW METHODS

Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel's c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer-Lemeshow 'goodness-of-fit' test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R ²). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research.

RESULTS

(1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R ² of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value.

LIMITATIONS

Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.