Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Rebecca Pedley is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Rebecca Pedley.


International Journal of Mental Health Nursing | 2012

Evolving role of mental health nurses in the physical health care of people with serious mental health illness

Tim Bradshaw; Rebecca Pedley

Life expectancy in members of the general population has steadily improved in most countries since 1960. However, during the same period, the life expectancy of people with serious mental illness (SMI) has actually reduced. The majority of premature deaths result from natural causes, such as coronary heart disease. Obesity, a key risk factor for heart disease in this client group, might be caused both by unhealthy lifestyle behaviours and the side-effects of antipsychotic medication. Mental health nurses (MHN) nurses have an important role to play in improving the physical health of people with SMI. Evidence, however, suggests that they are often ambivalent about this role, and might perceive themselves as being inadequately trained and lacking in confidence. In this paper, we will argue that MHN need to re-evaluate their practice and recognize that the provision of physical health care is as important as other roles they occupy in relation to the care of people with SMI. We will also consider examples of best practice in physical health care, and discuss how these might be adopted by MHN and other professionals, in order to begin to improve services and to reduce health inequalities in this client group.


The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry | 2014

An exploratory randomized controlled study of a healthy living intervention in early intervention services for psychosis: the INTERvention to encourage ACTivity, improve diet, and reduce weight gain (INTERACT) study.

Karina Lovell; Alison Wearden; Tim Bradshaw; Barbara Tomenson; Rebecca Pedley; Linda Davies; Nusrat Husain; Adrine Woodham; Diane Escott; Caroline Swarbrick; Omolade Femi-Ajao; Jeff Warburton; Max Marshall

BACKGROUND People with psychosis often experience weight gain, which places them at risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and early death. OBJECTIVE To determine the uptake, adherence, and clinical effectiveness of a healthy living intervention designed to reduce weight gain. METHOD An exploratory randomized controlled trial, comparing the intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in 2 early intervention services for psychosis in England. DSM-IV classification was the diagnostic criteria used to assign the psychiatric diagnoses. The primary outcome was change in body mass index (BMI) from baseline to 12-month follow-up. The study was conducted between February 2009 and October 2012. RESULTS 105 service users, with a BMI of ≥ 25 (≥ 24 in South Asians), were randomized to intervention (n = 54) or TAU (n = 51) after stratification by recent commencement of antipsychotic medication. Ninety-three service users (89%) were followed up at 12 months. Between-group difference in change in BMI was not significant (effect size = 0.11). The effect of the intervention was larger (effect size = 0.54, not significant) in 15 intervention (28%) and 10 TAU (20%) participants who were taking olanzapine or clozapine at randomization. CONCLUSIONS The healthy living intervention did not show a significant difference in BMI reduction compared to the TAU group. TRIAL REGISTRATION www.isrctn.org identifier: ISRCTN22581937.


Trials | 2014

Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Judith Gellatly; Peter Bower; Dean McMillan; Chris Roberts; Sarah Byford; Penny Bee; Simon Gilbody; Catherine Arundel; Gillian E. Hardy; Michael Barkham; Shirley Reynolds; Lina Gega; Patricia Mottram; Nicola Lidbetter; Rebecca Pedley; Emily Peckham; Janice Connell; Jo Molle; Neil O’Leary; Karina Lovell

BackgroundUK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required.Methods/DesignOur proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments.DiscussionThis study will provide more robust evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability of self-help treatments for OCD. If cCBT and/or GSH prove effective, it will provide additional, more accessible treatment options for people with OCD.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163. Date of registration: 5 April 2011


Health Technology Assessment | 2017

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

Karina Lovell; Peter Bower; Judith Gellatly; Sarah Byford; Penny Bee; Dean McMillan; Catherine Arundel; Simon Gilbody; Lina Gega; Gillian E. Hardy; Shirley Reynolds; Michael Barkham; Patricia Mottram; Nicola Lidbetter; Rebecca Pedley; Jo Molle; Emily Peckham; Jasmin Knopp-Hoffer; Owen Price; Janice Connell; Margaret Heslin; Christopher Foley; Faye Plummer; Chris Roberts

BACKGROUND The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


PLOS Medicine | 2017

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

Karina Lovell; Peter Bower; Judith Gellatly; Sarah Byford; Penny Bee; Dean McMillan; Catherine Arundel; Simon Gilbody; Lina Gega; Gillian E. Hardy; Shirley Reynolds; Michael Barkham; Patricia Mottram; Nicola Lidbetter; Rebecca Pedley; Jo Molle; Emily Peckham; Jasmin Knopp-Hoffer; Owen Price; Janice Connell; Margaret Heslin; Christopher Foley; Faye Plummer; Chris Roberts

Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. “High-intensity” cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current “best practice.” However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for “low-intensity” interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. Methods and findings This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West–Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through “OCFighter” or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale–Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = −1.91, 95% CI −3.27 to −0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of “clinically significant benefit.” cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = −0.71, 95% CI −2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. Conclusions We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.


BMC Psychiatry | 2017

Low intensity interventions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): a qualitative study of mental health practitioner experiences

Judith Gellatly; Rebecca Pedley; Christine Molloy; Jennifer Butler; Karina Lovell; Penny Bee

BackgroundObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating mental health disorder that can substantially impact upon quality of life and everyday functioning. Guidelines recommend pharmacological and psychological treatments, using a cognitive behaviour therapy approach (CBT) including exposure and response prevention, but access has generally been poor. Low intensity psychological interventions have been advocated. The evidence base for these interventions is emerging but there is a paucity of information regarding practitioners’ perceptions and experiences of supporting individuals with OCD using this approach.MethodsQualitative interviews were undertaken with psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) (n = 20) delivering low intensity psychological interventions for adults with OCD within the context of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial. Interviews explored the feasibility and acceptability of delivering two interventions; guided self-help and supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT), within Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in NHS Trusts. Interviews were recorded with consent, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsPWPs acknowledged the benefits of low intensity psychological interventions for individuals experiencing OCD symptoms on an individual and population level. Offering low intensity support provided was perceived to have the opportunity to overcome existing service barriers to access treatment, improve patient choice and flexibility. Professional and service relevant issues were also recognised including self-beliefs about supporting people with OCD and personal training needs. Challenges to implementation were recognised in relation to practitioner resistance and intervention delivery technical complications.ConclusionsThis study has provided insight into the implementation of new low intensity approaches to the management of OCD within existing mental health services. Benefits from a practitioner, service and patient perspective are identified and potential challenges highlighted.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163. Date of registration: 5 April 2011.


BMC Psychiatry | 2017

Understanding experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning

Nicola Small; Helen Brooks; Andrew Grundy; Rebecca Pedley; Chris Gibbons; Karina Lovell; Penny Bee

BackgroundPeople with severe mental illness suffer more physical comorbidity than the general population, which can require a tailored approach to physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Although evidence pertaining to service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning is accumulating, current understanding of how physical health is prioritised within this framework is limited. Understanding stakeholder experiences of physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and the key domains that underpin this phenomena is essential to improve quality of care. Our study aimed to explore service user, carer and professional experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and develop a conceptual framework of effective user-led involvement in this aspect of service provision.MethodsSix focus groups and four telephone interviews were carried out with twelve service users, nine carers, three service users with a dual service user and carer role, and ten mental health professionals recruited from one mental health Trust in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed utilising a thematic approach, analysed separately for each stakeholder group, and combined to aid comparisons.ResultsNo service users or carers recalled being explicitly involved in physical health discussions within mental health care planning. Six prerequisites for effective service user and carer involvement in physical care planning were identified. Three themes confirmed general mental health care planning requirements: tailoring a collaborative working relationship, maintaining a trusting relationship with a professional, and having access to and being able to edit a living document. Three themes were novel to feeling involved in physical health care planning discussions: valuing physical health equally with mental health; experiencing coordination of care between physical-mental health professionals, and having a physical health discussion that is personalised.ConclusionsHigh quality physical health care discussions within the care planning process demands action at multiple levels. A conceptual framework is presented which provides an evidence-based foundation for service level improvement. Further work is necessary to develop a new patient reported outcome measure to enable meaningful quantification of health care quality and patient experience.


BMC Psychiatry | 2017

Separating obsessive-compulsive disorder from the self. A qualitative study of family member perceptions

Rebecca Pedley; Penny Bee; Katherine Berry; Alison Wearden

BackgroundObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a condition which can have major effects on the life of both the sufferer and their family members. Previous research has shown that the impact of illness on family members is related to their conceptualisation of the illness. In the present study we used qualitative methods to explore illness perceptions in family members of people with OCD.MethodFourteen family members of people meeting diagnostic criteria for OCD within the previous year took part in a semi-structured interview. Transcribed interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsOCD was viewed as originating from non-modifiable endogenous factors, particularly personal characteristics. Ambiguity about the boundary between OCD and the person was further heightened by a lack of distinction in family members’ interpretations about which behaviours were a problematic symptom of a mental health problem and which were behaviours performed for enjoyment or the purposeful pursuit of a goal. The perceived close relationship between OCD and the person appeared to lead to pessimism regarding the likelihood of recovery. Some individuals viewed OCD as presenting on a continuum such that individuals with sub-clinical symptoms exist on the same spectrum as those with the mental health problem. For some however, labelling of sub-clinical symptoms as OCD by members of the public was a source of frustration for families, who felt that the severity of OCD was unrecognised.ConclusionsFamily members’ perceptions of the link between OCD and the person and of a spectrum of OCD presentation within the general population, may represent important dimensions of illness perception, which are not currently represented within existing models or assessment measures of illness perception. The perceptions that individuals hold about a health problem have been shown to be important in determining their coping responses to that condition. Further study using larger samples and quantitative methods are needed to understand whether these novel perceptions are associated with coping responses and outcomes in family members and people with OCD. If linked, clinicians may need to identify and challenge unhelpful family member perceptions as part of psychological therapy for families living with OCD.


BJPsych Open | 2018

Qualitative systematic review of barriers and facilitators to patient-involved antipsychotic prescribing

Rebecca Pedley; Caitlin McWilliams; Karina Lovell; Helen Brooks; Kelly Rushton; Richard Drake; Barnaby Rumbold; Vicky Bell; Penny Bee

Background Despite policy and practice mandates for patient involvement, people with serious mental illness often feel marginalised in decisions about antipsychotic medication. Aims To examine stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators to involving people with serious mental illness in antipsychotic prescribing decisions. Method Systematic thematic synthesis. Results Synthesis of 29 studies identified the following key influences on involvement: patients capability, desire and expectation for involvement, organisational context, and the consultation setting and processes. Conclusions Optimal patient involvement in antipsychotic decisions demands that individual and contextual barriers are addressed. There was divergence in perceived barriers to involvement identified by patients and prescribers. For example, patients felt that lack of time in consultations was a barrier to involvement, something seldom raised by prescribers, who identified organisational barriers. Patients must understand their rights to involvement and the value of their expertise. Organisational initiatives should mandate prescriber responsibility to overcome barriers to involvement. Declaration of interest None.


Clinical Psychology Review | 2008

The ascent into mania: a review of psychological processes associated with the development of manic symptoms.

Warren Mansell; Rebecca Pedley

Collaboration


Dive into the Rebecca Pedley's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Karina Lovell

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alison Wearden

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Tim Bradshaw

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Max Marshall

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Nusrat Husain

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Richard Drake

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alicia Picken

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lynsey Gregg

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge