Background
Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems,
including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with
homelessness and substance misuse.
Aims
This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention
improves mental health outcomes following release.
Method
The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was
conducted in the North West and South West of England
(ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or
less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention
(Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included
psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for
3–5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the
Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure
(CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared
groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT).
Results
In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were
potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet
the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean differ ence in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in
each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI –1.1 to
3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent
clinically significant between-group differences for secondary
outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140)
receiving community-based contact.
Conclusions
Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention
adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to
be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing
of different support strategies for prison with mental health
problems is needed.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are complex settings to undertake intervention research. Barriers to research implementation processes can threaten studies' validity, reducing the value to residents, staff, researchers and funders. We aimed to (i) identify and categorise contextual factors that may mediate outcomes of complex intervention studies in care homes and (ii) provide recommendations to minimise the risk of expensive research implementation failures. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using a framework synthesis approach viewed through a complex adaptive systems lens. We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ASSIA databases and grey literature. We sought process evaluations of care home complex interventions published in English. Narrative data were indexed under 28 context domains. We performed an inductive thematic analysis across the context domains. RESULTS: We included 33 process evaluations conducted in high-income countries, published between 2005 and 2019. Framework synthesis identified barriers to implementation that were more common at the task and organisational level. Inductive thematic analysis identified (i) avoiding procedural drift and (ii) participatory action and learning as key priorities for research teams. Research team recommendations include advice for protocol design and care home engagement. Care home team recommendations focus on internal resources and team dynamics. Collaborative recommendations apply to care homes' individual context and the importance of maintaining positive working relationships. DISCUSSION: Researchers planning and undertaking research with care homes need a sensitive appreciation of the complex care home context. Study implementation is most effective where an intervention is co-produced, with agreed purpose and adequate resources to incorporate within existing routines and care practices.

. Background
. Many male prison leavers have significant mental health problems. Prison leavers often have a history of trauma, ongoing substance misuse and housing insecurity. Only a minority of prison leavers receive mental health care on release from prison.
.
.
. Objectives
. The aim of the Engager research programme was to develop and evaluate a theory- and evidence-informed complex intervention designed to support individuals with common mental health problems (e.g. anxiety, depression) and other complex needs, including mental health comorbidity, before and after release from prison.
.
.
. Methods
. In phase 1, the intervention was developed through a set of realist-informed substudies, including a realist review of psychosocial care for individuals with complex needs, case studies within services demonstrating promising intervention features, focus groups with individuals from under-represented groups, a rapid realist review of the intervention implementation literature and a formative process evaluation of the prototype intervention. In a parallel randomised trial, methodological development included selecting outcome measures through reviewing literature, piloting measures and a consensus process, developing ways to quantify intervention receipt, piloting trial procedures and modelling economic outcomes. In phase 2, we conducted an individually randomised superiority trial of the Engager intervention, cost-effectiveness and cost–consequence analyses and an in-depth mixed-methods process evaluation. Patient and public involvement influenced the programme throughout, primarily through a Peer Researcher Group.
.
.
. Results
. In phase 1, the Engager intervention included multiple components. A practitioner offered participants practical support, emotional help (including mentalisation-based approaches) and liaison with other services in prison on the day of the participant’s release and for 3–5 months post release. An intervention delivery platform (i.e. training, manual, supervision) supported implementation. Outcome measures were selected through testing and stakeholder consensus to represent a broad range of domains, with a general mental health outcome as the primary measure for the trial. Procedures for recruitment and follow-up were tested and included flexible approaches to engagement and retention. In phase 2, the trial was conducted in three prison settings, with 280 participants randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either Engager plus usual care (n = 140) or usual care only (n = 140). We achieved a follow-up rate of 65% at 6 months post release from prison. We found no difference between the two groups for the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure at 6 months. No differences in secondary measures and sensitivity analyses were found beyond those expected by chance. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that Engager cost significantly more at £2133 (95% of iterations between £997 and £3374) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (–0.017, 95% of iterations between –0.042 and 0.007). The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated implementation barriers. These barriers included problems with retention of the intervention team, and the adverse health and criminal justice system context. Seventy-seven per cent (108/140) of individuals had at least one community contact. Significant proportions of participants engaging received day release work and practical support. In contrast, there was evidence that the psychological components, mentalisation and developing a shared understanding were used less consistently. When engagement was positive, these components were associated with positive achievement of goals for individuals. We were also able to identify how to improve the intervention programme theory, including how to support individuals who were unrealistic in their perception of their ability to cope with challenges post release.
.
.
. Strengths and limitations
. Our development work provides a worked example of the development of a complex intervention, particularly given little prior evidence or theory specific to male offenders to build on. Our trial methodological development enabled the completion of, to the best of our knowledge, the first fully powered trial of a mental health intervention for prison leavers with common mental health problems. There were potential weaknesses in the trial methodology in terms of follow-up rates and outcome measures, with the latter potentially being insufficiently sensitive to important but highly individual changes in participants who responded to the intervention.
.
.
. Conclusions
. Delivering a randomised controlled trial for prison leavers with acceptable levels of follow-up is possible, despite adverse conditions. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected. Some individuals did respond well to the intervention when both practical and psychological support were flexibly deployed as intended, with evidence that most components were experienced as helpful for some individuals. It is recommended that several key components be developed further and tested, along with improved training and supervision, to support delivery of the Engager intervention within existing teams working with prison leavers.
.
.
. Trial registration
. This trial is registered as ISRCTN11707331.
.
.
. Funding
. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
.

BACKGROUND: Care homes provide long term care for older people. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (known as minimum data sets (MDS)) use the aggregate data to guide resource allocation, monitor quality, and for research. Less is known about how an MDS affects how staff assess, provide and review residents' everyday care. The review aimed to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff can effectively implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care for residents. METHODS: the realist review was organised according to RAMESES (Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines. There were three overlapping stages: 1) defining the scope of the review and theory development on the use of minimum data set 2) testing and refining candidate programme theories through iterative literature searches and stakeholders' consultations as well as discussion among the research team; and 3) data synthesis from stages 1 and 2. The following databases were used MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ASSIA [Applied Social Sciences Citation Index and Abstracts]) and sources of grey literature. RESULTS: Fifty-one papers informed the development of three key interlinked theoretical propositions: motivation (mandates and incentives for Minimum Data Set completion); frontline staff monitoring (when Minimum Data Set completion is built into the working practices of the care home); and embedded recording systems (Minimum Data Set recording system is integral to collecting residents' data). By valuing the contributions of staff and building on existing ways of working, the uptake and use of an MDS could enable all staff to learn with and from each other about what is important for residents' care CONCLUSIONS: Minimum Data Sets provides commissioners service providers and researchers with standardised information useful for commissioning planning and analysis. For it to be equally useful for care home staff it requires key activities that address the staff experiences of care, their work with others and the use of digital technology. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171323.

BACKGROUND: People in the criminal justice system have complex needs but often do not make use of services outside of prison, in many cases due to poorly joined up working between health and criminal justice services. The 'Engager' programme aimed to develop a complex collaborative care intervention for people leaving prison with common mental health problems that could support their transition into the community and facilitate joined up working between health, justice and social services. To augment our core intervention theory, we wanted to learn from innovative and forward-thinking services providing interagency support and/or treatment for people experiencing common mental health problems within the criminal justice system. We wanted to identify key elements of interagency practice to understand what was and was not effective in engaging people, maintaining their contact and improving mental health and other aspects of their lives. METHOD: We used a multiple case study design with a focused ethnographic approach in four study sites. Data came from three sources (documents, field notes and semi-structured interviews) underwent a framework analysis. RESULTS: We identified seven main themes, namely: collaboration, client engagement, client motivation, supervision, therapeutic approach, peers and preparations for ending. Engaging and motivating clients was dependent on the relationship built with the professional. This relationship was developed through building trust and rapport, which required time and respectful, open and honest communication. Professionals were often unable to build this relationship effectively if they did not work in effective interagency collaborations, particularly those which included shared practices and were supported by effective supervision. CONCLUSIONS: the multiple case study design contributed insights as to how health and justice services work together. The main themes identified are well known factors in health and justice co-working. However, the novel insights were gleaned examining interdependence and interactions in complex, multifactorial phenomena and practice, in particular the importance of shared practice and supervision models. The approach of selecting a small number of cases representing identified knowledge gaps contributed a valuable addition to the program theory and delivery for an innovative complex intervention.

Medical Research Council guidelines recognise the need to optimise complex interventions prior to full trial through greater understanding of underlying theory and formative process evaluation, yet there are few examples. A realist approach to formative process evaluation makes a unique contribution through a focus on theory formalisation and abstraction. The success of an intervention is dependent on the extent to which it gels or jars with existing provision and can be successfully transferred to new contexts. Interventions with underlying programme theory about how they work, for whom, and under which circumstances will be better able to adapt to work with (rather than against) different services, individuals, and settings. In this methodological article, we describe and illustrate how a realist approach to formative process evaluation develops contextualised intervention theory that can underpin more adaptable and scalable interventions. We discuss challenges and benefits of this approach.

IntroductionThe increasing number of children and young people entering statutory care in the UK is a significant social, health and educational priority. Development of effective approaches to safely reduce this number remains a complex but critical issue. Despite a proliferation in interventions, evidence summaries are limited. The present protocol outlines a scoping review of research evidence to identify what works in safely reducing the number of children and young people (aged ≤18 years) entering statutory social care. The mapping of evidence gaps, clusters and uncertainties will inform the research programme of the newly funded Department for Education’s What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care.Methods and analysisThe review uses Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. Electronic database and website searches will identify studies targeting reduction of care entry, reduction of care re-entry and increase in post-care reunification. Supplementary searching techniques will include international expert consultation. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by two reviewers. Ten per cent of data abstraction will be independently conducted by two reviewers, with the remainder being extracted and then verified by a second reviewer. Descriptive numerical summaries and a thematic qualitative synthesis will be generated. Evidence will be synthesised according to primary outcome, intervention point (mapped across socioecological domains) and the realist EMMIE categorisation of evidence type (Effectiveness; Mechanisms of change; Moderators; Implementation; Economic evaluation).Ethics and disseminationOutputs will be a conceptual evidence map, a descriptive table quantitatively summarising evidence and a qualitative narrative summary. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, the What Works Centre website, and knowledge translation events with policy-makers and practitioners. Findings will inform the primary research programme of the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care and the subsequent suite of systematic reviews to be conducted by the Centre in this substantive area.

INTRODUCTION: the 'Engager' programme is a 'through-the-gate' intervention designed to support prisoners with common mental health problems as they transition from prison back into the community. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Engager intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: the study is a parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to either: (a) the Engager intervention plus standard care (intervention group) or (b) standard care alone (control group) across two investigation centres (South West and North West of England). Two hundred and eighty prisoners meeting eligibility criteria will take part. Engager is a person-centred complex intervention delivered by practitioners and aimed at addressing offenders' mental health and social care needs. It comprises one-to-one support for participants prior to release from prison and for up to 20 weeks postrelease. The primary outcome is change in psychological distress measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure at 6 months postrelease. Secondary outcomes include: assessment of subjective met/unmet need, drug and alcohol use, health-related quality of life and well-being-related quality of life measured at 3, 6 and 12 months postrelease; change in objective social domains, drug and alcohol dependence, service utilisation and perceived helpfulness of services and change in psychological constructs related to desistence at 6 and 12 months postrelease; and recidivism at 12 months postrelease. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 (ref: 15/WA/0314) and the National Offender Management Service (ref: 2015-283). Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, clinicians and service users via papers and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11707331; Pre-results.

. Background
. The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets.
.
.
. Objectives
. To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly.
.
.
. Design
. Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way.
.
.
. Data sources
. Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions.
.
.
. Results
. The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs.
.
.
. Limitations
. The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed.
.
.
. Conclusions
. Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience.
.
.
. Study registration
. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900.
.
.
. Funding
. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.
.

BACKGROUND: Rates of common mental health problems are much higher in prison populations, but access to primary care mental health support falls short of community equivalence. Discontinuity of care on release is the norm and is further complicated by substance use and a range of social problems, e.g. homelessness. To address these problems, we worked with criminal justice, third sector social inclusion services, health services and people with lived experiences (peer researchers), to develop a complex collaborative care intervention aimed at supporting men with common mental health problems near to and following release from prison. This paper describes an external pilot trial to test the feasibility of a full randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible individuals with 4 to 16 weeks left to serve were screened to assess for common mental health problems. Participants were then randomised at a ratio of 2:1 allocation to ENGAGER plus standard care (intervention) or standard care alone (treatment as usual). Participants were followed up at 1 and 3 months' post release. Success criteria for this pilot trial were to meet the recruitment target sample size of 60 participants, to follow up at least 50% of participants at 3 months' post release from prison, and to deliver the ENGAGER intervention. Estimates of recruitment and retention rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Descriptive analyses included summaries (percentages or means) for participant demographics, and baseline characteristics are reported. RESULTS: Recruitment target was met with 60 participants randomised in 9 months. The average retention rates were 73% at 1 month [95% CI 61 to 83] and 47% at 3 months follow-up [95% CI 35 to 59]. Ninety percent of participants allocated to the intervention successfully engaged with a practitioner before release and 70% engaged following release. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot confirms the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial for prison leavers with common mental health problems. Based on this pilot study and some minor changes to the trial design and intervention, a full two-centre randomised trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ENGAGER intervention is currently underway.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals throughout the developed world report higher levels of sickness absence, dissatisfaction, distress, and "burnout" at work than staff in other sectors. There is a growing call for the 'triple aim' of healthcare delivery (improving patient experience and outcomes and reducing costs; to include a fourth aim: improving healthcare staff experience of healthcare delivery. A systematic review commissioned by the United Kingdom's (UK) Department of Health reviewed a large number of international healthy workplace interventions and recommended five whole-system changes to improve healthcare staff health and wellbeing: identification and response to local need, engagement of staff at all levels, and the involvement, visible leadership from, and up-skilling of, management and board-level staff. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to identify whole-system healthy workplace interventions in healthcare settings that incorporate (combinations of) these recommendations and determine whether they improve staff health and wellbeing. METHODS: a comprehensive and systematic search of medical, education, exercise science, and social science databases was undertaken. Studies were included if they reported the results of interventions that included all healthcare staff within a healthcare setting (e.g. whole hospital; whole unit, e.g. ward) in collective activities to improve physical or mental health or promote healthy behaviours. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified which incorporated at least one of the whole-system recommendations. Interventions that incorporated recommendations to address local need and engage the whole workforce fell in to four broad types: 1) pre-determined (one-size-fits-all) and no choice of activities (two studies); or 2) pre-determined and some choice of activities (one study); 3) a wide choice of a range of activities and some adaptation to local needs (five studies); or, 3) a participatory approach to creating programmes responsive and adaptive to local staff needs that have extensive choice of activities to participate in (three studies). Only five of the interventions included substantial involvement and engagement of leadership and efforts aimed at up-skilling the leadership of staff to support staff health and wellbeing. Incorporation of more of the recommendations did not appear to be related to effectiveness. The heterogeneity of study designs, populations and outcomes excluded a meta-analysis. All studies were deemed by their authors to be at least partly effective. Two studies reported statistically significant improvement in objectively measured physical health (BMI) and eight in subjective mental health. Six studies reported statistically significant positive changes in subjectively assessed health behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified 11 studies which incorporate at least one of the Boorman recommendations and provides evidence that whole-system healthy workplace interventions can improve health and wellbeing and promote healthier behaviours in healthcare staff.

Many healthy workplace interventions have been developed for healthcare settings to address the consistently low scores of
healthcare professionals on assessments of mental and physical well-being. Complex healthcare settings present challenges for the
scale-up and spread of successful interventions from one setting to another. Despite general agreement regarding the importance
of the local setting in affecting intervention success across different settings, there is no consensus on what it is about a local setting
that needs to be taken into account to design healthy workplace interventions appropriate for different local settings. Complexity
theory principles were used to understand a workplace as a complex adaptive system and to create a framework of eight domains
(system characteristics) that affect the emergence of system-level behaviour. This Workplace of Well-being (WoW) framework is
responsive and adaptive to local settings and allows a shared understanding of the enablers and barriers to behaviour change by
capturing local information for each of the eight domains. We use the results of applying the WoW framework to one workplace,
a UK National Health Service ward, to describe the utility of this approach in informing design of setting-appropriate healthy
workplace interventions that create workplaces conducive to healthy behaviour change.

Background: This paper reports how we used a realist review, as part of a wider project to improve collaborative mental health care for prisoners with common mental health problems, to develop a conceptual platform. The importance of offenders gaining support for their mental health, and the need for practitioners across the health service, the criminal justice system, and the third sector to work together to achieve this is recognised internationally. However, the literature does not provide coherent analyses of how these ambitions can be achieved. This paper demonstrates how a realist review can be applied to inform complex intervention development that spans different locations, organisations, professions, and care sectors. Methods: We applied and developed a realist review for the purposes of intervention development, using a three-stage process. (1) an iterative database search strategy (extending beyond criminal justice and offender health) and groups of academics, practitioners, and people with lived experience were used to identify explanatory accounts (n = 347). (2) from these accounts, we developed consolidated explanatory accounts (n = 75). (3) the identified interactions between practitioners and offenders (within their organisational, social, and cultural contexts) were specified in a conceptual platform. We also specify, step by step, how these explanatory accounts were documented, consolidated, and built into a conceptual platform. This addresses an important methodological gap for social scientists and intervention developers about how to develop and articulate programme and implementation theory underpinning complex interventions. Results: an integrated person-centred system is proposed to improve collaborative mental health care for offenders with common mental health problems (near to and after release) by achieving consistency between the goals of different sectors and practitioners, enabling practitioners to apply scientific and experiential knowledge in working judiciously and reflectively, and building systems and aligning resources that are centred on offenders' health and social care needs. Conclusions: As part of a broader programme of work, a realist review can make an important contribution to the specification of theoretically informed interventions that have the potential to improve health outcomes. Our conceptual platform has potential application in related systems of health and social care where integrated, and person-centred care is a goal.