Barriers and facilitators to training delivery and subsequent implementation of a localised child and adolescent mental health initiative: a qualitative content analysis

BackgroundEnsuring that children and young people (CYP) can obtain mental health support from a broad variety of sources is of upmost importance. This is especially true given the increasing prevalence of mental health difficulties in this population, and the associated challenges with receiving support from specialised healthcare services. Equipping professionals, from a wide range of sectors, with the skills needed to provide this support is a vital starting point. This study explored the experiences of professionals who had participated in CYP mental health training modules that related directly to the local implementation of the THRIVE Framework for System Change in Greater Manchester, UK (GM i-THRIVE) to establish the perceived barriers and facilitators behind the implementation of this training programme.MethodsDirected qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interview data from nine CYP-facing professionals was conducted. Both the interview schedule and initial deductive coding strategy were developed using the findings of a systematic literature review by the authors, that was conducted to explore wider CYP mental health training experiences. This methodology was used to establish the presence or absence of these findings within GM i-THRIVE, before generating tailored recommendations for their training programme.ResultsWhen the interview data were coded and analysed, a strong level of thematic similarity with the authors' review was found. However, we deduced that the emergence of additional themes might reflect the contextual uniqueness of GM i-THRIVE, that is likely to be further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Six recommendations were made for further improvement. These included the facilitation of unstructured peer interaction during training, and ensuring that jargon and key words are fully clarified.ConclusionsMethodological limitations, guidance for usage, and potential applications of the study's findings are explored. Whilst the findings were largely akin to those of the review, subtle yet important differences were found. These are likely to reflect the nuances of the training programme discussed, however, we tentatively suggest that our findings are transferable to similar training interventions. This study provides a valuable example of how qualitative evidence syntheses can be used to aid study design and analysis: an underused approach.