Emily Stapley

Framework analysis: a worked example of a study exploring young people’s experiences of depression

ABSTRACT Framework analysis is an approach to qualitative research that is increasingly used across multiple disciplines, including psychology, social policy, and nursing research. The stages of framework analysis have been described in published work, but the literature is lacking in articles describing how to conduct it in practice, particularly in the field of psychology, where researchers may be working as part of a team. Having used framework analysis on a study exploring adolescents’ experiences of depression, we faced various challenges along the way and learned from experience how to use this approach to qualitative analysis. In this reflective article, we describe a worked example of using framework, which we hope will assist other researchers in deciding if this approach is suitable for their own research, and will provide guidance on how one might go about conducting framework analysis when working as part of a research team. We conclude that framework is a valuable contribution to qualitative methods in psychology, offering a pragmatic, flexible and rigorous approach to data analysis.

'Just like talking to someone about like shit in your life and stuff, and they help you': hopes and expectations for therapy among depressed adolescents

Abstract Objective: To explore hopes and expectations for therapy among a clinical population of depressed adolescents. Method: As part of a randomized clinical trial, 77 adolescents aged 11–17, with moderate to severe depression, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule. The interviews were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis. Results: The findings are reported around five themes: “the difficulty of imagining what will happen in therapy,” “the ‘talking cure,’” “the therapist as doctor,” “therapy as a relationship,” and “regaining the old self or developing new capacities.” Conclusions: Differing expectations are likely to have implications for the way young people engage with treatment, and failure to identify these expectations may lead to a risk of treatment breakdown.

Beyond a diagnosis: The experience of depression among clinically-referred adolescents

Policy-makers have identified an urgent need to improve our ability to detect and diagnose depression in adolescents. This study aims to explore the lived experience of depression in clinically referred adolescents. 77 adolescents, aged between 11 and 17 with moderate to severe depression, were interviewed as part of a randomised controlled trial, using the Expectations of Therapy Interview. Data were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis, with a focus on how the adolescents spoke about their depression. The study identified five themes: 1) Misery, despair and tears; 2) Anger and violence towards self and others; 3) A bleak view of everything; 4) Isolation and cutting off from the world; and 5) The impact on education. Researchers and policy-makers need to develop an understanding of depression grounded in the experiences of adolescents to improve detection and diagnosis of depression.

“Did I bring it on myself?” An exploratory study of the beliefs that adolescents referred to mental health services have about the causes of their depression

The causal beliefs which adults have regarding their mental health difficulties have been linked to help-seeking behaviour, treatment preferences, and the outcome of therapy; yet, the topic remains a relatively unexplored one in the adolescent literature. This exploratory study aims to explore the causal beliefs regarding depression among a sample of clinically referred adolescents. Seventy seven adolescents, aged between 11 and 17, all diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule, at the beginning of their participation in a randomised controlled trial. Data were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis. The study identified three themes related to causal beliefs: (1) bewilderment about why they were depressed; (2) depression as a result of rejection, victimisation, and stress; and (3) something inside is to blame. Although some adolescents struggled to identify the causes of their depression, many identified stressful life experiences as the cause of their current depression. They also tended to emphasise their own negative ways of interpreting those events, and some believed that their depression was caused by something inside them. Adolescents’ causal beliefs are likely to have implications for the way they seek help and engage in treatment, making it important to understand how adolescents understand their difficulties.

Realistic evaluation of Situation Awareness for Everyone (SAFE) on paediatric wards: study protocol

Introduction Evidence suggests that health outcomes for hospitalised children in the UK are worse than other countries in Europe, with an estimated 1500 preventable deaths in hospital each year. It is presumed that some of these deaths are due to unanticipated deterioration, which could have been prevented by earlier intervention, for example, sepsis. The Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) intervention aims to redirect the ‘clinical gaze’ to encompass a range of prospective indicators of risk or deterioration, including clinical indicators and staff concerns, so that professionals can review relevant information for any given situation. Implementing the routine use of huddles is central to increasing situation awareness in SAFE. Methods and analysis In this article, we describe the realistic evaluation framework within which we are evaluating the SAFE programme. Multiple methods and data sources are used to help provide a comprehensive understanding of what mechanisms for change are triggered by an intervention and how they have an impact on the existing social processes sustaining the behaviour or circumstances that are being targeted for change. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from London—Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (14/LO/0875). It is anticipated that the findings will enable us to understand what the important elements of SAFE and the huddle are, the processes by which they might be effective and—given the short timeframes of the project—initial effects of the intervention on outcomes. The present research will add to the extant literature by providing the first evidence of implementation of SAFE and huddles in paediatric wards in the UK.

Development of the Huddle Observation Tool for structured case management discussions to improve situation awareness on inpatient clinical wards

Background ‘Situation Awareness For Everyone’ (SAFE) was a 3-year project which aimed to improve situation awareness in clinical teams in order to detect potential deterioration and other potential risks to children on hospital wards. The key intervention was the ‘huddle’, a structured case management discussion which is central to facilitating situation awareness. This study aimed to develop an observational assessment tool to assess the team processes occurring during huddles, including the effectiveness of the huddle. Methods A cross-sectional observational design was used to psychometrically develop the ‘Huddle Observation Tool’ (HOT) over three phases using standardised psychometric methodology. Huddles were observed across four NHS paediatric wards participating in SAFE by five researchers; two wards within specialist children hospitals and two within district general hospitals, with location, number of beds and length of stay considered to make the sample as heterogeneous as possible. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for the collaborative culture (weighted kappa=0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42), environment items (weighted kappa=0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1) and total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95). It was lower for the structure and risk management items, suggesting that these were more variable in how observers rated them. However, agreement on the global score for huddles was acceptable. Conclusion We developed an observational assessment tool to assess the team processes occurring during huddles, including the effectiveness of the huddle. Future research should examine whether observational evaluations of huddles are associated with other indicators of safety on clinical wards (eg, safety climate and incidents of patient harm), and whether scores on the HOT are associated with improved situation awareness and reductions in deterioration and adverse events in clinical settings, such as inpatient wards.