How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation

Abstract Background Public mental health interventions are non-clinical services that aim to promote wellbeing and prevent mental ill health at the population level. In England, the health, social and community system is characterised by complex and fragmented inter-sectoral relationships. To overco...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cleo Baskin, Fiona Duncan, Emma A. Adams, Emily J. Oliver, Gillian Samuel, Shamini Gnani
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2023-12-01
Series:BMC Public Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17404-x
_version_ 1827590262269935616
author Cleo Baskin
Fiona Duncan
Emma A. Adams
Emily J. Oliver
Gillian Samuel
Shamini Gnani
author_facet Cleo Baskin
Fiona Duncan
Emma A. Adams
Emily J. Oliver
Gillian Samuel
Shamini Gnani
author_sort Cleo Baskin
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Public mental health interventions are non-clinical services that aim to promote wellbeing and prevent mental ill health at the population level. In England, the health, social and community system is characterised by complex and fragmented inter-sectoral relationships. To overcome this, there has been an expansion in co-locating public mental health services within clinical settings, the focus of prior research. This study evaluates how co-location in community-based settings can support adult mental health and reduce health inequalities. Methods A qualitative multi-site case study design using a realist evaluation approach was employed. Data collection took place in three phases: theory gleaning, parallel testing and refining of theories, and theory consolidation. We collected data from service users (n = 32), service providers (n = 32), funders, commissioners, and policy makers (n = 11), and members of the public (n = 10). We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 65) and four focus group discussions (n = 20) at six case study sites across England, UK, and two online multi-stakeholder workshops (n = 20). Interview guides followed realist-informed open-ended questions, adapted for each phase. The realist analysis used an iterative, inductive, and deductive data analysis approach to identify the underlying mechanisms for how community co-location affects public mental health outcomes, who this works best for, and understand the contexts in which co-location operates. Results Five overarching co-location theories were elicited and supported. Co-located services: (1) improved provision of holistic and person-centred support; (2) reduced stigma by creating non-judgemental environments that were not associated with clinical or mental health services; (3) delivered services in psychologically safe environments by creating a culture of empathy, friendliness and trust where people felt they were being treated with dignity and respect; (4) helped to overcome barriers to accessibility by making service access less costly and more time efficient, and (5) enhance the sustainability of services through better pooling of resources. Conclusion Co-locating public mental health services within communities impacts multiple social determinants of poor mental health. It has a role in reducing mental health inequalities by helping those least likely to access services. Operating practices that engender inter-service trust and resource-sharing are likely to support sustainability.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T01:14:24Z
format Article
id doaj.art-30c4864e2b9843f29a3d7d94a543403a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2458
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T01:14:24Z
publishDate 2023-12-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Public Health
spelling doaj.art-30c4864e2b9843f29a3d7d94a543403a2023-12-10T12:34:25ZengBMCBMC Public Health1471-24582023-12-0123111710.1186/s12889-023-17404-xHow co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluationCleo Baskin0Fiona Duncan1Emma A. Adams2Emily J. Oliver3Gillian Samuel4Shamini Gnani5Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College LondonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle UniversityPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle UniversityPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle UniversityThe McPin FoundationDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College LondonAbstract Background Public mental health interventions are non-clinical services that aim to promote wellbeing and prevent mental ill health at the population level. In England, the health, social and community system is characterised by complex and fragmented inter-sectoral relationships. To overcome this, there has been an expansion in co-locating public mental health services within clinical settings, the focus of prior research. This study evaluates how co-location in community-based settings can support adult mental health and reduce health inequalities. Methods A qualitative multi-site case study design using a realist evaluation approach was employed. Data collection took place in three phases: theory gleaning, parallel testing and refining of theories, and theory consolidation. We collected data from service users (n = 32), service providers (n = 32), funders, commissioners, and policy makers (n = 11), and members of the public (n = 10). We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 65) and four focus group discussions (n = 20) at six case study sites across England, UK, and two online multi-stakeholder workshops (n = 20). Interview guides followed realist-informed open-ended questions, adapted for each phase. The realist analysis used an iterative, inductive, and deductive data analysis approach to identify the underlying mechanisms for how community co-location affects public mental health outcomes, who this works best for, and understand the contexts in which co-location operates. Results Five overarching co-location theories were elicited and supported. Co-located services: (1) improved provision of holistic and person-centred support; (2) reduced stigma by creating non-judgemental environments that were not associated with clinical or mental health services; (3) delivered services in psychologically safe environments by creating a culture of empathy, friendliness and trust where people felt they were being treated with dignity and respect; (4) helped to overcome barriers to accessibility by making service access less costly and more time efficient, and (5) enhance the sustainability of services through better pooling of resources. Conclusion Co-locating public mental health services within communities impacts multiple social determinants of poor mental health. It has a role in reducing mental health inequalities by helping those least likely to access services. Operating practices that engender inter-service trust and resource-sharing are likely to support sustainability.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17404-xCommunity organisationsCo-located servicesMental healthPublic Mental HealthInterventions
spellingShingle Cleo Baskin
Fiona Duncan
Emma A. Adams
Emily J. Oliver
Gillian Samuel
Shamini Gnani
How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
BMC Public Health
Community organisations
Co-located services
Mental health
Public Mental Health
Interventions
title How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
title_full How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
title_fullStr How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
title_full_unstemmed How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
title_short How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation
title_sort how co locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities a multi site realist evaluation
topic Community organisations
Co-located services
Mental health
Public Mental Health
Interventions
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17404-x
work_keys_str_mv AT cleobaskin howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation
AT fionaduncan howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation
AT emmaaadams howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation
AT emilyjoliver howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation
AT gilliansamuel howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation
AT shaminignani howcolocatingpublicmentalhealthinterventionsincommunitysettingsimpactsmentalhealthandhealthinequalitiesamultisiterealistevaluation