IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i3-4p415-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mental health training to improve communication with children and adolescents: A process evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Moran
  • Leslie Morrison Gutman

Abstract

Aims and objective To characterise the intervention components, mechanisms of change and barriers to implementation of an intervention to improve communication behaviour of hospital staff surrounding mental health with children and adolescents. Background Healthcare professionals consistently report a lack of confidence and knowledge to care for young people experiencing mental health difficulties. We Can Talk is a one‐day training, delivered to hospital staff, which provides tools to improve their communication with children and adolescents about mental health. Initial evaluation suggests the training improved confidence and skills regarding communication; however, the effective intervention components and mechanisms of change are not yet understood. Design A process evaluation was conducted using a qualitative research design. Methods Document analysis of the training manual, using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, characterised intervention components. Ten interviews with paediatric staff from an east London hospital were conducted post‐intervention. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework, the mechanisms of change and remaining barriers to communication were coded thematically. COREQ checklist was used in the reporting of the study. Results Twenty behaviour change techniques were identified. Communication about mental health was mainly facilitated through improving the knowledge, cognitive and interpersonal skills, and beliefs about capabilities of healthcare professionals. A small number of staff continued to experience barriers to communication including a lack of opportunity for communication, beliefs that their professional role is not suited to supporting mental health and nervousness. Behaviour change techniques are highlighted to address remaining barriers reported post‐intervention. Conclusions Using validated and systematic behaviour change tools, this process evaluation contributes to the translation of evidence to clinical practice for more effective, sustainable and transparent mental health care, reducing the research‐practice gap in this area. Relevance to clinical practice These findings can facilitate implementation of evidence‐based practice and inform interventions, improving clinical practice and outcomes for children and adolescents.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Moran & Leslie Morrison Gutman, 2021. "Mental health training to improve communication with children and adolescents: A process evaluation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3-4), pages 415-432, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:415-432
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15551
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15551?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Joanna K. & Howarth, Emma & Vainre, Maris & Jones, Peter B. & Humphrey, Ayla, 2017. "A scoping literature review of service-level barriers for access and engagement with mental health services for children and young people," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 164-176.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, Minseop & Garcia, Antonio R. & Jung, Nahri & Barnhart, Sheila, 2020. "Rates and predictors of mental health service use among dual system youth," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Glassgow, Anne Elizabeth & Gerges, Michael & Martin, Molly A. & Estrada, Isela & Issa, Zahra & Lapin, Katerine & Morell, Laura & Solis, Nitza & Van Voorhees, Benjamin & Risser, Heather J., 2018. "Integration of mental health services into an innovative health care delivery model for children with chronic conditions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 144-151.
    3. Nicholas Woodrow & Hannah Fairbrother & Katrina D’Apice & Katie Breheny & Patricia Albers & Clare Mills & Sarah Tebbett & Rona Campbell & Frank De Vocht, 2022. "Exploring the Potential of a School-Based Online Health and Wellbeing Screening Tool: Young People’s Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Gevaert, Koen & Keinemans, Sabrina & Roose, Rudi, 2018. "Deciding on priorities in youth care: A systematic literature review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 191-199.
    5. Sapiro, Beth, 2020. "Assessing trustworthiness: Marginalized youth and the central relational paradox in treatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    6. Giordano, Keri & LaTourette, Richard & O'Rourke, Sarah & Baker, Sadaysia & Breen, Emily, 2021. "Availability & willingness of psychologists to treat infants and young children: Data from one state," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    7. June S. L. Brown & Stephen Lisk & Ben Carter & Sharon A. M. Stevelink & Ryan Van Lieshout & Daniel Michelson, 2022. "How Can We Actually Change Help-Seeking Behaviour for Mental Health Problems among the General Public? Development of the ‘PLACES’ Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:415-432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.