Background: People with serious mental illness have sexual health needs, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to promote their sexual health.
Objectives: To develop a sexual health promotion intervention for people with serious mental illness, and to conduct a feasibility trial in order to establish the acceptability and parameters for a fully powered trial.
Design: A two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility study comparing usual care alone with usual care plus the adjunctive intervention.
Setting: Five community mental health providers in Leeds, Barnsley, Brighton and London.
Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with serious mental illness and receiving care from community mental health teams.
Interventions: A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to usual care plus the RESPECT (Randomised Evaluation of Sexual health Promotion Effectiveness informing Care and Treatment) intervention (three sessions of 1 hour) (intervention arm) or usual care only (control arm). The intervention was an interactive manualised package of exercises, quizzes and discussion topics focusing on knowledge, motivation and behavioural intentions to adopt safer sexual behaviours.
Main outcome measures: Feasibility parameters including establishing the percentage of people who were eligible, consented and were retained in each arm of the trial, retention for the intervention, as well as the completeness of the data collection. Data were collected on knowledge, motivation to adopt safer sexual behaviour, sexual behaviour, sexual stigma, sexual health service use and quality of life. Data were collected at baseline and then at 3 months and 6 months post randomisation.
Results: Of a target of 100 participants, 72 people participated in the trial over 12 months. Of the 36 participants randomised to the intervention arm, 27 received some of the intervention (75.0%). At 3 months, 59 of the 72 participants completed follow-up questionnaires (81.9%) (30 participants from the intervention arm and 29 participants from the control arm). Only the first 38 participants were followed up at 6 months. However, data were collected on 29 out of 38 participants (76.3% retention): 13 in the intervention arm and 16 in the control arm. No adverse events were reported. Participant feedback confirmed that both the design and the intervention were acceptable. The economic analysis indicated high completion rates and completeness of data among participants who continued the trial.
Conclusions: Despite the limitations, the findings suggest that it is both acceptable and feasible to undertake a sexual health promotion study for people with serious mental illness.
Future work: A fully powered randomised controlled trial would be required to establish the clinical effectiveness of the intervention.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15747739.
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. 23, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Keywords: FEASIBILITY RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS; SEXUAL HEALTH.
A team of researchers, mental health and sexual health workers, and people with lived experience of mental health problems developed an intervention to help people with serious mental health problems to increase their knowledge and understanding of sexual health, including types of contraception, using condoms safely and sexually transmitted infections, and to consider safety and assertiveness in intimate relationships. This was delivered over three sessions of 1 hour by a specifically trained mental health worker. We recruited 72 people from community mental health services to take part in a study to test the intervention and see whether or not we could collect information about their sexual behaviour using questionnaires. Initially, the numbers of people volunteering for the study were very small. We found that recruitment increased when we shifted to a more direct approach (rather than asking clinical staff to promote the study to people on their caseloads). The direct approach included talking to people who use services directly in clinics and at service user events, and by sending study information by post. We were not able to recruit the numbers that we aimed to (72/100 participants) in the timescale of the study, but the majority of the people who were recruited actively participated in the trial and were generally happy to attend follow-up appointments to complete more questionnaires. Most of those who were allocated to the intervention attended all three sessions. Overall, people found that being a participant of the study was comfortable and safe (acceptable) and we found that it was possible to undertake this type of study within mental health services. We have learnt a lot about how we could run this study on a larger scale. Such a study would allow us to see if the intervention makes a difference to sexual behaviour and increases access to sexual health services for people with serious mental illness.