Effect of a needs-based model of care on the characteristics of healthcare services in England: the i-THRIVE National Implementation Programme.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
R Sippy, L Efstathopoulou, E Simes, M Davis, S Howell, B Morris, O Owrid, N Stoll, P Fonagy, A Moore
{"title":"Effect of a needs-based model of care on the characteristics of healthcare services in England: the i-THRIVE National Implementation Programme.","authors":"R Sippy, L Efstathopoulou, E Simes, M Davis, S Howell, B Morris, O Owrid, N Stoll, P Fonagy, A Moore","doi":"10.1017/S2045796025000101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Developing integrated mental health services focused on the needs of children and young people is a key policy goal in England. The THRIVE Framework and its implementation programme, i-THRIVE, are widely used in England. This study examines experiences of staff using i-THRIVE, estimates its effectiveness, and assesses how local system working relationships influence programme success.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evaluation uses a quasi-experimental design (10 implementation and 10 comparison sites.) Measurements included staff surveys and assessment of 'THRIVE-like' features of each site. Additional site-level characteristics were collected from health system reports. The effect of i-THRIVE was evaluated using a four-group propensity-score-weighted difference-in-differences model; the moderating effect of system working relationships was evaluated with a difference-in-difference-in-differences model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Implementation site staff were more likely to report using THRIVE and more knowledgeable of THRIVE principles than comparison site staff. The mean improvement of fidelity scores among i-THRIVE sites was 16.7, and 8.8 among comparison sites; the weighted model did not find a statistically significant difference. However, results show that strong working relationships in the local system significantly enhance the effectiveness of i-THRIVE. Sites with highly effective working relationships showed a notable improvement in 'THRIVE-like' features, with an average increase of 16.41 points (95% confidence interval: 1.69-31.13, P-value: 0.031) over comparison sites. Sites with ineffective working relationships did not benefit from i-THRIVE (-2.76, 95% confidence interval: - 18.25-12.73, P-value: 0.708).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings underscore the importance of working relationship effectiveness in the successful adoption and implementation of multi-agency health policies like i-THRIVE.</p>","PeriodicalId":11787,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","volume":"34 ","pages":"e21"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796025000101","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Developing integrated mental health services focused on the needs of children and young people is a key policy goal in England. The THRIVE Framework and its implementation programme, i-THRIVE, are widely used in England. This study examines experiences of staff using i-THRIVE, estimates its effectiveness, and assesses how local system working relationships influence programme success.

Methods: This evaluation uses a quasi-experimental design (10 implementation and 10 comparison sites.) Measurements included staff surveys and assessment of 'THRIVE-like' features of each site. Additional site-level characteristics were collected from health system reports. The effect of i-THRIVE was evaluated using a four-group propensity-score-weighted difference-in-differences model; the moderating effect of system working relationships was evaluated with a difference-in-difference-in-differences model.

Results: Implementation site staff were more likely to report using THRIVE and more knowledgeable of THRIVE principles than comparison site staff. The mean improvement of fidelity scores among i-THRIVE sites was 16.7, and 8.8 among comparison sites; the weighted model did not find a statistically significant difference. However, results show that strong working relationships in the local system significantly enhance the effectiveness of i-THRIVE. Sites with highly effective working relationships showed a notable improvement in 'THRIVE-like' features, with an average increase of 16.41 points (95% confidence interval: 1.69-31.13, P-value: 0.031) over comparison sites. Sites with ineffective working relationships did not benefit from i-THRIVE (-2.76, 95% confidence interval: - 18.25-12.73, P-value: 0.708).

Conclusions: The findings underscore the importance of working relationship effectiveness in the successful adoption and implementation of multi-agency health policies like i-THRIVE.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
1.20%
发文量
121
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences is a prestigious international, peer-reviewed journal that has been publishing in Open Access format since 2020. Formerly known as Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale and established in 1992 by Michele Tansella, the journal prioritizes highly relevant and innovative research articles and systematic reviews in the areas of public mental health and policy, mental health services and system research, as well as epidemiological and social psychiatry. Join us in advancing knowledge and understanding in these critical fields.
×
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