首页> 外文OA文献 >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
【2h】

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:可行性随机试验比较两种形式的心理健康支持的住宿(支持的住房和浮动外展);追求的一个组成部分(支持租约的质量和有效性)研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

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:心理健康支持的住宿服务在英格兰实施,通常组织成一个“降雨”的护理途径,要求个人反复移动,因为他们获得更加独立生活的技能和信心。没有试验比较不同类型支持的住宿的有效性,但已经发现两个广泛使用的模型(支持的住房和浮动外展)提供类似的支持。我们旨在评估进行大规模试验比较这两个模型的可行性。方法:英格兰三个地区的单独随机,并行组可行性试验(北伦敦,东伦敦和切尔滕纳姆和格洛斯特郡)。我们旨在在15个月内招募60名参与者,提交支持的住宿,按照平等的基础随机分配,以获得当地支持的住房或浮动外展服务。我们评估了对审判,参与者招募,消耗,从招聘时间转入任何类型的受支持的住宿,以及蒙面的可行性的审判。我们进行了一个过程评估,以进一步审查我们的结果。结果:我们举行了1,432名潜在的参与者,其中17名同意参加,8人同意随机化(其中1人失去了吸引力)和9次参与自然的随访。我们的流程评估表明,招聘的主要障碍是某些类型支持的住宿或特定服务的工作人员和服务用户偏好。工作人员也觉得随机化损害了他们的专业判断。结论:我们的结果在此时不支持在英格兰的大规模审判中的投资.Tiral注册:UK CRN POSTFOLIO数据库,试验ID:ISRCTN19689576.TRIAD资金:国家健康研究所研究(RP-PG-0707-10093)。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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