Abstract Background: Several interventions have been developed to improve physical health and lifestyle behaviour of people with a severe mental illness (SMI). Recently, we conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial which evaluated the efects of the one-year Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) lifestyle intervention compared with usual care in clients with SMI. The SMILE intervention is a 12-month group-based lifestyle intervention with a focus on increased physical activity and healthy food intake. The aim of the current study was to explore the experiences of people with SMI and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding implementation feasibility of the SMILE intervention and the fdelity to the SMILE intervention. Methods: A process evaluation was conducted alongside the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The experiences of clients and HCPs in the lifestyle intervention group were studied. First, descriptive data on the implementation of the intervention were collected. Next, semi-structured interviews with clients (n=15) and HCPs (n=13) were performed. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed using MAXQDA software. In addition, observations of group sessions were performed to determine the fdelity to the SMILE intervention using a standardised form. Results: Ten out of 26 HCPs who conducted the group sessions discontinued their involvement with the intervention, primarily due to changing jobs. 98% of all planned group sessions were performed. Four main themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Positive appraisal of the SMILE intervention, 2) Suggestions for improvement of the SMILE intervention 3) Facilitators of implementation and 4) Barriers of implementation. Both clients and HCPs had positive experiences regarding the SMILE intervention. Clients found the intervention useful and informative. The intervention was found suitable and interesting for all people with SMI, though HCPs sometimes had to tailor the intervention to individual characteristics of patients (e.g., with respect to cognitive functioning). The handbook of the SMILE intervention was perceived as user-friendly and helpful by HCPs. Combining SMILE with daily tasks, no support from other team members, and lack of staf and time were experienced as barriers for the delivery of the intervention Conclusion: The SMILE intervention was feasible and well-perceived by clients and HCPs. However, we also identifed some aspects that may have hindered efective implementation and needs to be considered when implementing the SMILE intervention in daily practice
Abstract Background: Several interventions have been developed to improve physical health and lifestyle behaviour of people with a severe mental illness (SMI). Recently, we conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial which evaluated the efects of the one-year Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) lifestyle intervention compared with usual care in clients with SMI. The SMILE intervention is a 12-month group-based lifestyle intervention with a focus on increased physical activity and healthy food intake. The aim of the current study was to explore the experiences of people with SMI and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding implementation feasibility of the SMILE intervention and the fdelity to the SMILE intervention. Methods: A process evaluation was conducted alongside the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The experiences of clients and HCPs in the lifestyle intervention group were studied. First, descriptive data on the implementation of the intervention were collected. Next, semi-structured interviews with clients (n=15) and HCPs (n=13) were performed. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed using MAXQDA software. In addition, observations of group sessions were performed to determine the fdelity to the SMILE intervention using a standardised form. Results: Ten out of 26 HCPs who conducted the group sessions discontinued their involvement with the intervention, primarily due to changing jobs. 98% of all planned group sessions were performed. Four main themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Positive appraisal of the SMILE intervention, 2) Suggestions for improvement of the SMILE intervention 3) Facilitators of implementation and 4) Barriers of implementation. Both clients and HCPs had positive experiences regarding the SMILE intervention. Clients found the intervention useful and informative. The intervention was found suitable and interesting for all people with SMI, though HCPs sometimes had to tailor the intervention to individual characteristics of patients (e.g., with respect to cognitive functioning). The handbook of the SMILE intervention was perceived as user-friendly and helpful by HCPs. Combining SMILE with daily tasks, no support from other team members, and lack of staf and time were experienced as barriers for the delivery of the intervention Conclusion: The SMILE intervention was feasible and well-perceived by clients and HCPs. However, we also identifed some aspects that may have hindered efective implementation and needs to be considered when implementing the SMILE intervention in daily practice
Background: Increasing attention to palliative care for the general population has led to the development of various evidence-based or consensus-based tools and interventions. However, specific tools and interventions are needed for people with severe mental illness (SMI) who have a life-threatening illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific evidence on tools and interventions in palliative care for this group. Methods: Systematic searches were done in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases, supplemented by reference tracking, searches on the internet with free text terms, and consultations with experts to identify relevant literature. Empirical studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs concerning tools and interventions for use in palliative care for people with SMI were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal instrument for heterogeneous study designs. Stepwise study selection and the assessment of methodological quality were done independently by two review authors. Results: Four studies were included, reporting on a total of two tools and one multi-component intervention. One study concerned a tool to identify the palliative phase in patients with SMI. This tool appeared to be usable only in people with SMI with a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, two related studies focused on a tool to involve people with SMI in discussions about medical decisions at the end of life. This tool was assessed as feasible and usable in the target group. One other study concerned the Dutch national Care Standard for palliative care, including a multicomponent intervention. The Palliative Care Standard also appeared to be feasible and usable in a mental healthcare setting, but required further tailoring to suit this specific setting. None of the included studies investigated the effects of the tools and interventions on quality of life or quality of care. Conclusions: Studies of palliative care tools and interventions for people with SMI are scarce. The existent tools and intervention need further development and should be tailored to the care needs and settings of these people. Further research is needed on the feasibility, usability and effects of tools and interventions for palliative care for people with SMI.
