Therapist characteristics and their effect on training outcomes: what counts?

Background: Evidence exists for a relationship between individual characteristics and both job and training performance; however relationships may not be generalizable. Little is known about the impact of therapist characteristics on performance in postgraduate therapist training programmes. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between the grades of trainee Low-Intensity and High-Intensity cognitive behavioural therapists and individual characteristics. Method: Trainee Low-Intensity (n=81) and High-Intensity (n=59) therapists completed measures of personality and cognitive ability; demographic and course grade data for participants were collected. Results: Degree classification emerged as the only variable to be significantly associated with performance across assessments and courses. Higher undergraduate degree classifications were associated with superior academic and clinical performance. Agreeableness was the only dimension of personality to be associated (positively) with clinical skill. Age was weakly and negatively associated with performance. Conclusions: Relationships between individual characteristics and training outcomes are complex and may be context specific. These results could have important implications for the selection and development of therapists for Low or High-Intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) training.

CPD records for revalidation: assessing fitness-to-practise using ‘revalidation standards’ and an Outcomes Framework

Background: Currently, all pharmacists and technicians registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain must complete a minimum of nine Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record (entries) each year. From September 2010 a new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, will oversee the regulation (including revalidation) of all pharmacy registrants in Great Britain. CPD may provide part of the supporting evidence that a practitioner submits to the regulator as part of the revalidation process. Gaps in knowledge necessitated further research to examine the usefulness of CPD in a pharmacy revalidation Project aims: The overall aims of this project were to summarise pharmacy professionals’ past involvement in CPD, examine the usability of current CPD entries for the purpose of revalidation, and to examine the impact of ‘revalidation standards’ and a bespoke Outcomes Framework on the conduct and construction of CPD entries for future revalidation of pharmacy professionals. We completed a comprehensive review of the literature, devised, validated and tested the impact of a new CPD Outcomes Framework and related training material in an empirical investigation involving volunteer pharmacy professionals and also spoke with our participants to bring meaning and understanding to the process of CPD conduct and recording and to gain feedback on the study itself. Key findings: The comprehensive literature review identified perceived barriers to CPD and resulted in recommendations that could potentially rectify pharmacy professionals’ perceptions and facilitate participation in CPD. The CPD Outcomes Framework can be used to score CPD entries Compared to a control (CPD and ‘revalidation standards’ only), we found that training participants to apply the CPD Outcomes Framework resulted in entries that scored significantly higher in the context of a quantitative method of CPD assessment. Feedback from participants who had received the CPD Outcomes Framework was positive and a number of useful suggestions were made about improvements to the Framework and related training. Entries scored higher because participants had consciously applied concepts linked to the CPD Outcomes Framework whereas entries scored low where participants had been unable to apply the concepts of the Framework for a variety of reasons including limitations posed by the ‘Plan & Record’ template. Feedback about the nature of the ‘revalidation standards’ and their application to CPD was not positive and participants had not in the main sought to apply the standards to their CPD entries – but those in the intervention group were more likely to have referred to the revalidation standards for their CPD. As assessors, we too found the process of selecting and assigning ‘revalidation standards’ to individual CPD entries burdensome and somewhat unspecific. We believe that addressing the perceived barriers and drawing on the facilitators will help deal with the apparent lack of engagement with the revalidation standards and have been able to make a set of relevant recommendations. We devised a model to explain and tell the story of CPD behaviour. Based on the concepts of purpose, action and results, the model centres on explaining two types of CPD behaviour, one following the traditional CE pathway and the other a more genuine CPD pathway. Entries which scored higher when we applied the CPD Outcomes Framework were more likely to follow the CPD pathway in the model above. Significant to our finding is that while participants following both models of practice took part in this study, the CPD Outcomes Framework was able to change people’s CPD behaviour to make it more inline with the CPD pathway. The CPD Outcomes Framework in defining the CPD criteria, the training pack in teaching the basis and use of the Framework and the process of assessment in using the CPD Outcomes Framework, would have interacted to improve participants’ CPD through a collective process. Participants were keen to receive a curriculum against which certainly CE-type activities could be conducted and another important observation relates to whether CE has any role to play in pharmacy professionals’ revalidation. We would recommend that the CPD Outcomes Framework is used in the revalidation of pharmacy professionals in the future provided the requirement to submit 9 CPD entries per annum is re-examined and expressed more clearly in relation to what specifically participants are being asked to submit – i.e. the ratio of CE to CPD entries. We can foresee a benefit in setting more regular intervals which would act as deadlines for CPD submission in the future. On the whole, there is value in using CPD for the purpose of pharmacy professionals’ revalidation in the future.

Predicting outcomes following cognitive behavior therapy in child anxiety disorders: the influence of genetic, demographic and clinical information

Background. Within a therapeutic gene by environment (GxE) framework, we recently demonstrated that variation in the Serotonin Transporter Promoter Polymorphism; 5HTTLPR and marker rs6330 in Nerve Growth Factor gene; NGF is associated with poorer outcomes following cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for child anxiety disorders. The aim of this study was to explore one potential means of extending the translational reach of G×E data in a way that may be clinically informative. We describe a ‘risk-index’ approach combining genetic, demographic and clinical data and test its ability to predict diagnostic outcome following CBT in anxious children. Method. DNA and clinical data were collected from 384 children with a primary anxiety disorder undergoing CBT. We tested our risk model in five cross-validation training sets. Results. In predicting treatment outcome, six variables had a minimum mean beta value of 0.5: 5HTTLPR, NGF rs6330, gender, primary anxiety severity, comorbid mood disorder and comorbid externalising disorder. A risk index (range 0-8) constructed from these variables had moderate predictive ability (AUC = .62-.69) in this study. Children scoring high on this index (5-8) were approximately three times as likely to retain their primary anxiety disorder at follow-up as compared to those children scoring 2 or less. Conclusion. Significant genetic, demographic and clinical predictors of outcome following CBT for anxiety-disordered children were identified. Combining these predictors within a risk-index could be used to identify which children are less likely to be diagnosis free following CBT alone or thus require longer or enhanced treatment. The ‘risk-index’ approach represents one means of harnessing the translational potential of G×E data.

A randomised controlled trial of positive memory training for the treatment of depression within schizophrenia

Abstract Background: Depression is highly prevalent within individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, and is associated with an increased risk of suicide. There are no current evidence based treatments for low mood within this group. The specific targeting of co-morbid conditions within complex mental health problems lends itself to the development of short-term structured interventions which are relatively easy to disseminate within health services. A brief cognitive intervention based on a competitive memory theory of depression, is being evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in reducing depression within this group. Methods/Design: This is a single blind, intention-to-treat, multi-site, randomized controlled trial comparing Positive Memory Training plus Treatment as Usual with Treatment as Usual alone. Participants will be recruited from two NHS Trusts in Southern England. In order to be eligible, participants must have a DSM-V diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder and exhibit at least a mild level of depression. Following baseline assessment eligible participants will be randomly allocated to either the Positive Memory Training plus Treatment as Usual group or the Treatment as Usual group. Outcome will be assessed at the end of treatment (3-months) and at 6-month and 9-month post randomization by assessors blind to group allocation. The primary outcome will be levels of depression and secondary outcomes will be severity of psychotic symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with all participants who are allocated to the treatment group so as to explore the acceptability of the intervention. Discussion: Cognitive behaviour therapy is recommended for individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, the number of sessions and length of training required to deliver this intervention has caused a limit in availability. The current trial will evaluate a short-term structured protocol which targets a co-morbid condition often considered of primary importance by service users. If successful the intervention will be an important addition to current initiatives aimed at increasing access to psychological therapies for people diagnosed with severe mental health problems. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials. ISRCTN99485756. Registered 13 March 2014.

Training on the use of a bespoke continuing professional development framework improves the quality of CPD records

BACKGROUND: Using continuing professional development (CPD) as part of the revalidation of pharmacy professionals has been proposed in the UK but not implemented. We developed a CPD Outcomes Framework (‘the framework’) for scoring CPD records, where the score range was -100 to +150 based on demonstrable relevance and impact of the CPD on practice. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aimed to test the outcome of training people to use the framework, through distance-learning material (active intervention), by comparing CPD scores before and after training. SETTING: Pharmacy professionals were recruited in the UK in Reading, Banbury, Southampton, Kingston-upon-Thames and Guildford in 2009. METHOD: We conducted a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, before and after study. The control group simply received information on new CPD requirements through the post; the active intervention group also received the framework and associated training. Altogether 48 participants (25 control, 23 active) completed the study. All participants submitted CPD records to the research team before and after receiving the posted resources. The records (n=226) were scored blindly by the researchers using the framework. A subgroup of CPD records (n=96) submitted first (before-stage) and rewritten (after-stage) were analysed separately. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores for CPD records received before and after distributing group-dependent material through the post. RESULTS: Using a linear-regression model both analyses found an increase in CPD scores in favour of the active intervention group. For the complete set of records, the effect was a mean difference of 9.9 (95% CI = 0.4 to 19.3), p-value = 0.04. For the subgroup of rewritten records, the effect was a mean difference of 17.3 (95% CI = 5.6 to 28.9), p-value = 0.0048. CONCLUSION: The intervention improved participants’ CPD behaviour. Training pharmacy professionals to use the framework resulted in better CPD activities and CPD records, potentially helpful for revalidation of pharmacy professionals. IMPACT: • Using a bespoke Continuing Professional Development outcomes framework improves the value of pharmacy professionals’ CPD activities and CPD records, with the potential to improve patient care. • The CPD outcomes framework could be helpful to pharmacy professionals internationally who want to improve the quality of their CPD activities and CPD records. • Regulators and officials across Europe and beyond can assess the suitability of the CPD outcomes framework for use in pharmacy CPD and revalidation in their own setting.