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
| Autor: | Rob Macpherson, Joanna Krotofil, Maurice Arbuthnott, Rose McGranahan, Sandra Eldridge, Paul McCrone, Gerard Leavey, Sarah Dowling, Sarah Curtis, Helen Killaspy, Michael King, Peter McPherson, Stefan Priebe, Isobel Harrison, Christian Dalton-Locke, Zohra Zenasni |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
lcsh:RC435-571
media_common.quotation_subject supported accommodation Masking (Electronic Health Record) 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Nursing lcsh:Psychiatry tria medicine Attrition Quality (business) media_common Psychiatry QuEST Service (business) floating outreach trial supported housing medicine.disease Clinical Trial Mental health 030227 psychiatry Outreach Psychiatry and Mental health Portfolio Psychology mental health 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Independent living feasibility |
| Zdroj: | Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol 10 (2019) Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019, Vol.10, pp.258 [Peer Reviewed Journal] |
| ISSN: | 1664-0640 |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00258 |
| Popis: | 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). |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|