Cited by 24Health Policy Implementation ScienceMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMental Health Treatment and Access

Accessibility and implementation in the UK NHS services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme: learning from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy through a mixed-methods study

Open access
Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Gradinger, Felix, Griffiths, Heledd O, Crane, Rebecca, Gibson, Andy, Mercer, Stewart, Anderson, Rob, Kuyken, Willem·2017·Health Services and Delivery Research

Abstract

Background: Depression affects as many as one in five people in their lifetime and often runs a recurrent lifetime course. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an effective psychosocial approach that aims to help people at risk of depressive relapse to learn skills to stay well. However, there is an ‘implementation cliff’: access to those who could benefit from MBCT is variable and little is known about why that is the case, and how to promote sustainable implementation. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature about the implementation of MBCT. Objectives: To describe the existing provision of MBCT in the UK NHS, develop an understanding of the perceived costs and benefits of MBCT implementation, and explore the barriers and critical success factors for enhanced accessibility. We aimed to synthesise the evidence from multiple data sources to create an explanatory framework of the how and why of implementation, and to co-develop an implementation resource with key stakeholders. Design: A two-phase qualitative, exploratory and explanatory study, which was conceptually underpinned by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: UK NHS services. Methods: Phase 1 involved interviews with participants from 40 areas across the UK about the current provision of MBCT. Phase 2 involved 10 case studies purposively sampled with differing degrees of MBCT provision, and from each UK country. Case study methods included interviews with key stakeholders, including commissioners, managers, MBCT practitioners and teachers, and service users. Observations were conducted and key documents were also collected. Data were analysed using a modified approach to framework analysis. Emerging findings were verified through stakeholder discussions and workshops. Results: Phase 1: access to and the format of MBCT provision across the NHS remains variable. NHS services have typically adapted MBCT to their context and its integration into care pathways was also highly variable even within the same trust or health board. Participants’ accounts revealed stories of implementation journeys that were driven by committed individuals that were sometimes met by management commitment. Phase 2: a number of explanations emerged that explained successful implementation. Critically, facilitation was the central role of the MBCT implementers, who were self-designated individuals who ‘championed’ implementation, created networks and over time mobilised top-down organisational support. Our explanatory framework mapped out a prototypical implementation journey, often over many years. This involved implementers working through grassroots initiatives and over time mobilising top-down organisational support, and a continual fitting of evidence, with the MBCT intervention, contextual factors and the training/supervision of MBCT teachers. Key pivot points in the journey provided windows of challenge or opportunity. Limitations: The findings are largely based on informants’ accounts and, therefore, are at risk of the bias of self-reporting. Conclusions: Although access to MBCT across the UK is improving, it remains very patchy. This study provides an explanatory framework that helps us understand what facilitates and supports sustainable MBCT implementation. Future work: The framework and stakeholder workshops are being used to develop online implementation guidance. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hsdr05140

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Professor Andy Gibson (Associate Professor in PPI) was a co-applicant for this grant. He designed the PPI component of the project, supported the securing of funding and was involved in monthly project management meetings. He also supported PPI involvement in the development of data collection tools, participated in data analysis workshops, commented on a draft of the final report and approved final report.
  2. Professor Stewart Mercer (Professor of Primary Care Research) was a co-applicant for this grant. He co-designed the study, supported the securing of funding and was involved in monthly project management meetings. He also supported access to sites for data collection purposes, participated in data analysis workshops, commented on drafts of the final report and approved the final report.
  3. Professor Rob Anderson (Associate Professor of Health Economics and Evaluation) was the collaborator. He supervised Dr Gradinger at the University of Exeter in the latter part of the project and supported access to sites for data collection purposes. He also participated in a dissemination workshop, commented on drafts of the final report and approved the final report.
  4. Professor Willem Kuyken (Professor of Clinical Psychology) was a co-principal investigator. He co-designed the study, co-led the securing of funding, oversaw day-to-day project management and co-designed data collection tools. He was also involved in data collection activity in phases 1 and 2, was actively engaged in data analysis for both phases of the project, co-led dissemination workshops, co-led writing of the final report and approved the final report. Publication
  5. Rycroft-Malone J, Anderson R, Crane RS, Gibson A, Gradinger F, Owen Griffiths H, et al. Accessibility and implementation in UK services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme -mindfulness- based cognitive therapy (MBCT): ASPIRE study protocol. Implement Sci 2014;9:62. References
  6. Edwards AR, Evans S, Aldao A, Haglin D, Ferrando SJ. Implementing a mindfulness-based stress reduction program in the community: lessons learned and suggestions for the future. Behav Ther 2014;37:13-17.
  7. Pons GB. Mindfulness-based stress reduction program: systemizing its implementation in a semirural public hospital in southern Chile. Psicoperspectivas 2011;10:221-42.
  8. Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. New York, NY: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2008.
  9. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO. Using Evidence. London: The Policy Press; 2007.
  10. Gabbay J, Le May A. Practice-Based Evidence. Clinical Mindlines. Abingdon: Routledge; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rycroft-Malone, J., Gradinger, F., Griffiths, H. O., Crane, R., Gibson, A., Mercer, S., Anderson, R., & Kuyken, W.
Affiliations
  • Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Health Services and Delivery Research
Published
2017-03
Volume
5
Issue
14
Pages
1-190
ISSN
  • 2050-4349 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-4357
OpenAlex
W2599696066
Cited by
24
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Services and Delivery Research (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme (12/64/187)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, depression relapse prevention, implementation barriers and facilitators, access to services, NHS mental health services, implementation champions, organizational support, implementation evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review