The Help for People with Money, Employment or Housing Problems (HOPE) Intervention: pilot randomised trial with mixed methods feasibility research

Maria Barnes, Anne Haase, Lauren Scott, Myles-Jay Linton, Alison Bard, Jenny Donovan, Rosie Davies, Susan Dursley, Salena Williams, Daisy Elliott, John Potokar, N Kapur, Keith Hawton, Rory C O'Connor, William Hollingworth, Chris Metcalfe, David Gunnell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
298 Downloads (Pure)



Job loss, austerity measures, financial difficulties and house repossession contribute to the risk of self-harm and suicide during recessions. Navigating the benefits system and accessing sources of welfare and debt advice is a difficult experience for vulnerable people, further contributing to their distress. Whilst there is some evidence that advice-type interventions can lead to financial gain, there is mixed evidence for their effectiveness in improving mental health in those experiencing financial difficulties. There have been no interventions targeting those who have self-harmed due to economic hardship.


Our aim was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychosocial intervention (the ‘HOPE’ service) for people presenting to hospital emergency departments (ED) following self-harm or in acute distress because of financial, employment or welfare (benefit) difficulties. Nineteen people consented to random allocation to the intervention or control arm on a 2:1 basis. Participants randomised to the intervention arm (n = 13) received up to six sessions of 1:1 support provided by community support staff trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI). Control participants (n = 6) received a one-off session signposting them to relevant support organisations. Fourteen participants were followed up after 3 months. Participants and mental health workers took part in qualitative interviews. The acceptability of outcome measures including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, repeat self-harm, EQ5D-5 L and questions about debt, employment and welfare benefits were explored.


Interviews indicated the main benefits of the service as the resolution of specific financial problems and receiving support when participants were feeling most vulnerable. Randomisation was acceptable to most participants although not always fully understood and control participants could be disappointed. Recruitment was slow (1–2 per month). The outcome measures were acceptable and appeared sensitive to change.


The HOPE intervention is feasible and acceptable. There was evidence of need and it is a relatively inexpensive intervention. Refining aspects of the intervention would be straightforward. A full-scale RCT would be feasible, if broadened eligibility criteria led to increased recruitment and improvements were made to staff training and support.
Original languageEnglish
Article number172
Number of pages18
JournalPilot and Feasibility Studies
Publication statusPublished - 13 Nov 2018

Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research
  • SASH


  • Self-harm
  • Financial hardship
  • Support intervention
  • Motivational interviewing
  • Feasibility


Dive into the research topics of 'The Help for People with Money, Employment or Housing Problems (HOPE) Intervention: pilot randomised trial with mixed methods feasibility research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
  • NIHR BRC Mental Health

    Gunnell, D. J.


    Project: Research, Parent

Cite this