A mixed-methods evaluation of the acceptability and fidelity of the James’ Place model for men experiencing suicidal crisis

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Research supports development of informal, community-based suicide prevention interventions that can be tailored to suit men’s unmet needs. The James’ Place model (JPM) is a community-based, clinical suicide prevention intervention for men experiencing suicidal crisis. Evidence supports the efficacy of the JPM and there are plans to expand to additional sites across the UK. This study evaluates therapists perceived acceptability of the JPM, and if fidelity to the planned delivery of the model is maintained within therapeutic practice. Method A mixed-methods design was used. Descriptive analyses of 30 completed intervention cases were examined to review fidelity of the model against the intervention delivery plan. Eight therapists took part in semi-structured interviews between November 2021 and March 2022 exploring the perceived acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to delivering the JPM. Results Descriptive analyses of James’ Place audit notes revealed high levels of adherence to the JPM amongst therapists, but highlighted components of the model needed to be tailored according to individual men’s needs. Thematic analysis led to the development of five themes. The first theme, therapeutic environment highlighted importance of the therapy setting. The second theme identified was specialised suicide prevention training in the JPM that facilitated therapists understanding and expertise. The third theme identified was therapy engagement which discusses men’s engagement in therapy. The fourth theme, person-centred care related to adaptation of delivery of JPM components. The final theme, adapting the JPM to individual needs describes tailoring of the JPM by therapists to be responsive to individual men’s needs. Conclusion The findings evidence therapist’s acceptability and their moderate adherence to the JPM. Flexibility in delivery of the JPM enables adaptation of the model and co-production of therapy to meet men’s needs. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.