...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychiatry >Feasibility Randomised Trial Comparing Two Forms of Mental Health Supported Accommodation (Supported Housing and Floating Outreach); a Component of the QuEST (Quality and Effectiveness of Supported Tenancies) Study
【24h】

Feasibility Randomised Trial Comparing Two Forms of Mental Health Supported Accommodation (Supported Housing and Floating Outreach); a Component of the QuEST (Quality and Effectiveness of Supported Tenancies) Study

机译:比较两种形式的精神卫生支持住宿的可行性随机试验(支持住房和浮动外展); QuEST(支持的租户的质量和有效性)研究的组成部分

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Mental health supported accommodation services are implemented across England, usually organised into a ‘step-down’ care pathway that requires the individual to repeatedly move as they gain skills and confidence for more independent living. There have been no trials comparing the effectiveness of different types of supported accommodation, but two widely used models (supported housing and floating outreach) have been found to provide similar support. We aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a large-scale trial comparing these two models. Methods: Individually randomised, parallel group feasibility trial in three regions of England (North London, East London, and Cheltenham and Gloucestershire). We aimed to recruit 60 participants in 15 months, referred to supported accommodation, randomly allocated on an equal basis to receive either a local supported housing or floating outreach service. We assessed referrals to the trial, participants recruited, attrition, time from recruitment to moving into either type of supported accommodation, and feasibility of masking. We conducted a process evaluation to examine our results further. Results: We screened 1,432 potential participants, of whom 17 consented to participate, with 8 agreeing to randomisation (of whom 1 was lost to attrition) and 9 participating in naturalistic follow-up. Our process evaluation indicated that the main obstacle to recruitment was staff and service user preferences for certain types of supported accommodation or for specific services. Staff also felt that randomisation compromised their professional judgement. Conclusions: Our results do not support investment in a large-scale trial in England at this time. Trial registration: UK CRN Portfolio database, Trial ID: ISRCTN19689576. Trial funding: National Institute of Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10093).
机译:背景:在英格兰各地实施了由心理健康支持的住宿服务,通常将其组织为“逐步降低”的护理途径,这要求个人在获得技能和信心以获得更独立生活时反复走动。尚没有试验比较不同类型的有保障的住宿的有效性,但是发现两种广泛使用的模型(有保障的住房和浮动式外展)可以提供类似的支持。我们旨在评估比较这两种模型进行大规模试验的可行性。方法:在英格兰的三个地区(北伦敦,东伦敦,切尔滕纳姆和格洛斯特郡)进行单独随机分组平行的可行性试验。我们的目标是在15个月内招募60名参与者,这些人称为有保障的住宿,并在相等的基础上随机分配,以接受当地有保障的住房或浮动外展服务。我们评估了该试验的转诊情况,受试者的招募,人员流失,从受试者招募到进入任何一种支持住宿的时间以及掩盖的可行性。我们进行了过程评估,以进一步检查我们的结果。结果:我们筛选了1,432名潜在参与者,其中17名同意参加,其中8名同意随机分组(其中1名因磨损而丢失),9名参加自然随访。我们的流程评估表明,招聘的主要障碍是员工和服务用户对某些类型的支持住宿或特定服务的偏好。工作人员还认为随机化影响了他们的专业判断。结论:我们的结果目前不支持在英格兰进行的大规模试验投资。试用注册:UK CRN组合数据库,试用ID:ISRCTN19689576。试验资金:国立卫生研究院(RP-PG-0707-10093)。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号