Qualitative Study of Telehealth Delivery of Suicide-Specific Group Treatment "Project Life Force".

Sapana R Patel, Sarah R Sullivan, Emily L Mitchell, Shari Jager-Hyman, Barbara Stanley, Marianne Goodman
{"title":"Qualitative Study of Telehealth Delivery of Suicide-Specific Group Treatment \"Project Life Force\".","authors":"Sapana R Patel, Sarah R Sullivan, Emily L Mitchell, Shari Jager-Hyman, Barbara Stanley, Marianne Goodman","doi":"10.1007/s41347-022-00297-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Minimal evidence exists for suicide-specific group treatment for high-risk patients offered over telehealth. This qualitative study assessed the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of a telehealth suicide safety planning intervention (SPI) multi-session group. High-risk suicidal Veterans (<i>n</i> = 17) participating in \"Project Life Force-telehealth\" (PLF-T); a manualized, 10-session SPI video group completed semi-structured qualitative interviews including measures of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. We also interviewed the PLF-T coordinator and PLF-T group facilitators to identify adaptations to deliver PLF-T and learn about barriers and facilitators to implementation. A summary template and matrix analysis approach was used to analyze qualitative data. Veteran group participants were mostly male (88%), age 50 (SD = 15.6), ethnically diverse, and either divorced or separated (54%). Suicide symptoms upon study entry included past month ideation with methods (100%); and past year aborted, interrupted, or actual suicide attempt (59%). Participant interviews revealed an overall positive endorsement of PLF-telehealth with enhanced suicidal disclosure, and improved ability to manage urges and mitigate loneliness. On scales from 1 to 20, PLF-T was rated as highly acceptable (M = 17.50; SD = 2.92), appropriate (M = 17.25; SD = 3.59), and feasible (M = 18; SD = 2.45) by participants. Adaptations to deliver PLF-T included using a communications coordinator to conduct assertive outreach and engagement, adding a telehealth orientation session, restructuring sessions to review suicide severity, and screen-sharing safety plans to maximize learning. PLF-T enhanced convenience and access without compromising safety. Concerns included privacy and technological limitations including connectivity. Project Life Force-telehealth is acceptable and feasible to deliver via telehealth. This opens the possibility of delivery to hard-to-reach high-risk populations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0365363.</p>","PeriodicalId":73962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of technology in behavioral science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9811055/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of technology in behavioral science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-022-00297-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Minimal evidence exists for suicide-specific group treatment for high-risk patients offered over telehealth. This qualitative study assessed the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of a telehealth suicide safety planning intervention (SPI) multi-session group. High-risk suicidal Veterans (n = 17) participating in "Project Life Force-telehealth" (PLF-T); a manualized, 10-session SPI video group completed semi-structured qualitative interviews including measures of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. We also interviewed the PLF-T coordinator and PLF-T group facilitators to identify adaptations to deliver PLF-T and learn about barriers and facilitators to implementation. A summary template and matrix analysis approach was used to analyze qualitative data. Veteran group participants were mostly male (88%), age 50 (SD = 15.6), ethnically diverse, and either divorced or separated (54%). Suicide symptoms upon study entry included past month ideation with methods (100%); and past year aborted, interrupted, or actual suicide attempt (59%). Participant interviews revealed an overall positive endorsement of PLF-telehealth with enhanced suicidal disclosure, and improved ability to manage urges and mitigate loneliness. On scales from 1 to 20, PLF-T was rated as highly acceptable (M = 17.50; SD = 2.92), appropriate (M = 17.25; SD = 3.59), and feasible (M = 18; SD = 2.45) by participants. Adaptations to deliver PLF-T included using a communications coordinator to conduct assertive outreach and engagement, adding a telehealth orientation session, restructuring sessions to review suicide severity, and screen-sharing safety plans to maximize learning. PLF-T enhanced convenience and access without compromising safety. Concerns included privacy and technological limitations including connectivity. Project Life Force-telehealth is acceptable and feasible to deliver via telehealth. This opens the possibility of delivery to hard-to-reach high-risk populations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0365363.

对远程医疗提供自杀专项小组治疗 "生命力量项目 "的定性研究。
通过远程医疗为高危患者提供自杀专项小组治疗的证据极少。这项定性研究评估了远程医疗自杀安全计划干预(SPI)多疗程小组的可接受性、可行性和影响。参与 "远程健康生命力量项目"(PLF-T)的高危退伍军人(17 人)完成了半结构化定性访谈,包括对可接受性、适宜性和可行性的测量。我们还对 PLF-T 协调员和 PLF-T 小组主持人进行了访谈,以确定提供 PLF-T 的适应性,并了解实施的障碍和促进因素。我们采用了总结模板和矩阵分析方法来分析定性数据。退伍军人小组参与者大多为男性(88%),年龄为 50 岁(SD = 15.6),种族多样,不是离异就是分居(54%)。参加研究时出现的自杀症状包括:过去一个月内有自杀意念并采取了自杀方法(100%);过去一年内自杀未遂、自杀中断或实际自杀未遂(59%)。对参与者的访谈显示,他们对 PLF-telehealth的总体认可度较高,自杀倾向的披露程度有所提高,控制自杀冲动和缓解孤独感的能力也有所增强。根据 1 到 20 分的评分标准,参与者对 PLF-T 的评分为高度可接受(M = 17.50;SD = 2.92)、适当(M = 17.25;SD = 3.59)和可行(M = 18;SD = 2.45)。为提供 PLF-T 而进行的调整包括:使用一名沟通协调员来开展积极的外联和参与活动,增加远程医疗指导环节,调整环节以审查自杀严重程度,以及通过屏幕共享安全计划来最大限度地提高学习效果。PLF-T 在不影响安全性的前提下提高了便利性和可及性。人们关注的问题包括隐私和技术限制,包括连接性。生命力量项目-远程保健通过远程保健提供服务是可以接受的,也是可行的。这为向难以接触到的高风险人群提供服务提供了可能性。ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT0365363。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信