Service design for children and young people with common mental health problems: literature review, service mapping and collective case study
Steven Pryjmachuk,Susan Kirk,Claire Fraser,Nicola Evans,Rhiannon Lane,Liz Neill,Elizabeth Camacho,Peter Bower,Penny Bee,Tim McDougall
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/DKRT6293
Abstract:Background: The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm. Aim: To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services. Design: Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services. Setting: Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study). Data sources: Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites. Methods: A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'. Results: A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems. Limitations: Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought about a surge in remote/digital services which were under-represented in the literature. A dearth of relevant studies meant few cost-effectiveness conclusions could be drawn. Conclusions: There was no strong evidence to suggest any existing service model was better than another. Instead, we developed a coproduced, evidence-based model that incorporates the fundamental components necessary for high-quality children's mental health services and which has utility for policy, practice and research. Future work: Future work should focus on: the potential of our model to assist in designing, delivering and auditing children's mental health services; reasons for non-engagement in services; the cost effectiveness of different approaches in children's mental health; the advantages/disadvantages of digital/remote platforms in delivering services; understanding how and what the statutory sector might learn from the non-statutory sector regarding choice, personalisation and flexibility. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/09/08) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.