Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines
Aims: To develop a) an empirically-based standardised measure of the feasibility of complex interventions for use within mental health services and b) reporting guidelines to facilitate feasibility assessment. Method: A focussed narrative review of studies assessing implementation blocks and enable...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Royal College of Psychiatrists
2014
|
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34262/ |
| _version_ | 1848794811723677696 |
|---|---|
| author | Bird, Victoria Le Boutillier, Clair Leamy, Mary Williams, Julie Bradstreet, Simon Slade, Mike |
| author_facet | Bird, Victoria Le Boutillier, Clair Leamy, Mary Williams, Julie Bradstreet, Simon Slade, Mike |
| author_sort | Bird, Victoria |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Aims: To develop a) an empirically-based standardised measure of the feasibility of complex interventions for use within mental health services and b) reporting guidelines to facilitate feasibility assessment.
Method: A focussed narrative review of studies assessing implementation blocks and enablers was conducted with thematic analysis and vote counting used to determine candidate items for the measure. Twenty purposively sampled studies (15 trial reports, 5 protocols) were included in the psychometric evaluation, spanning different interventions types. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated for inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability.
Results: 95 influences on implementation were identified from 299 reviewed references. The final measure - Structured Assessment of Feasibility (SAFE) - comprises 16 items rated on a Likert scale. SAFE demonstrated excellent inter-rater (kappa 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 - 0.89) and test re-test reliability (kappa 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 - 0.93). Cost information and training time were the two influences least likely to be reported in intervention papers. SAFE Reporting Guidelines include 16 items organised into 3 categories (Intervention, Resource consequences, Evaluation).
Conclusion: SAFE is a novel approach to evaluating interventions, and supplements efficacy and health economic evidence. SAFE Reporting Guidelines will allow feasibility of an intervention to be systematically assessed. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:22:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-34262 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:22:08Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | Royal College of Psychiatrists |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-342622020-05-04T16:43:37Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34262/ Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines Bird, Victoria Le Boutillier, Clair Leamy, Mary Williams, Julie Bradstreet, Simon Slade, Mike Aims: To develop a) an empirically-based standardised measure of the feasibility of complex interventions for use within mental health services and b) reporting guidelines to facilitate feasibility assessment. Method: A focussed narrative review of studies assessing implementation blocks and enablers was conducted with thematic analysis and vote counting used to determine candidate items for the measure. Twenty purposively sampled studies (15 trial reports, 5 protocols) were included in the psychometric evaluation, spanning different interventions types. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated for inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability. Results: 95 influences on implementation were identified from 299 reviewed references. The final measure - Structured Assessment of Feasibility (SAFE) - comprises 16 items rated on a Likert scale. SAFE demonstrated excellent inter-rater (kappa 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 - 0.89) and test re-test reliability (kappa 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 - 0.93). Cost information and training time were the two influences least likely to be reported in intervention papers. SAFE Reporting Guidelines include 16 items organised into 3 categories (Intervention, Resource consequences, Evaluation). Conclusion: SAFE is a novel approach to evaluating interventions, and supplements efficacy and health economic evidence. SAFE Reporting Guidelines will allow feasibility of an intervention to be systematically assessed. Royal College of Psychiatrists 2014-04-01 Article PeerReviewed Bird, Victoria, Le Boutillier, Clair, Leamy, Mary, Williams, Julie, Bradstreet, Simon and Slade, Mike (2014) Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines. British Journal of Psychiatry, 204 (4). pp. 316-321. ISSN 1472-1465 http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/204/4/316 doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128314 doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128314 |
| spellingShingle | Bird, Victoria Le Boutillier, Clair Leamy, Mary Williams, Julie Bradstreet, Simon Slade, Mike Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title | Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title_full | Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title_short | Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| title_sort | evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34262/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34262/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34262/ |