The development and comparison of two treatment services for complex emotional needs in primary care: a feasibility and acceptability study of the H.O.P.E (Northumberland) and REDS (Cambridgeshire) services

Abstract People with complex emotional needs (CEN) often receive poor care and struggle to access the evidence-based therapy they require. As part of community transformation, the Help to Overcome Personal and Emotional problems (H.O.P.E) team in Northumberland, and the Relational and Emotional Difficulties Service (REDS) in Cambridge, were set up to ensure that people with CEN could receive timely therapy without accessing secondary or tertiary services. Both services focus on providing adapted versions of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). The present study aims to understand the process followed to establish the two teams, identify whether they have been able to deliver accessible and acceptable treatment, and reflect on shared learning points for other services to consider. The study provides descriptions of the two service designs, further to quantitative and qualitative feedback from participants that completed treatment with the services. The results confirm that people in Northumberland and Cambridgeshire who accessed the services found the therapy to be acceptable and reported significant improvement in their ability to regulate their emotions, a decrease in symptoms associated with CEN, and a greater sense of progress towards achieving meaningful goals in their lives. However, in line with the broader literature, a high number of people dropped out and did not complete the interventions. The results suggest that the H.O.P.E team and REDS are providing acceptable and accessible evidence-based treatment for people with CEN. Reflections for future services to consider regarding reducing drop-out rates, the length of treatment, inclusion criteria, engaging people from minority groups and the use of online vs face-to-face therapy are provided. Key learning aims (1) Understand the process followed to establish two different CEN services in primary care settings. (2) Identify whether two CEN services have delivered accessible and acceptable treatment. (3) Compare how two CEN services are structured, and highlight shared learning points for other services.