Healing Houses systematic review: design, sustainability, opportunities and barriers facing Soteria and peer respite development.

BACKGROUND: Soteria houses and peer respites, collectively called Healing Houses, are alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation. AIMS: The aim of this research is to review Healing Houses in relation to design characteristics (architectural and service), sustainability and development opportunities and barriers. METHODS: This systematic review followed a PROSPERO protocol (CRD42022378089). Articles were identified from journal database searches, hand searching websites, Google Scholar searches, expert consultation and backwards and forward citation searches. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-nine documents were screened in three languages (English, German and Hebrew) and 45 documents were included from seven countries. The review highlights 11 architectural design characteristics (atmosphere, size, soft room, history, location, outdoor space, cleanliness, interior design, facilities, staff only areas and accessibility), six service design characteristics (guiding principles, living and working together, consensual treatment, staff, supporting personal meaning making and power), five opportunities (outcomes, human rights, economics, hospitalization and underserved) and four types of barriers (clinical, economic and regulatory, societal and ideological). The primary sustainability issue was long-term funding. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on operationalizing a "home-like" atmosphere and the impact of design features such as green spaces on wellbeing of staff and service users. Future research could also produce design guidelines for Healing Houses.

Is personal recovery a transdiagnostic concept? Testing the fit of the CHIME framework using narrative experiences.

BACKGROUND: Personal recovery is operationalized in the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope, identity, meaning in life, and empowerment) of recovery processes. CHIME was initially developed through analysis of experiences of people mainly with psychosis, but it might also be valid for investigating recovery in mood-related, autism and other diagnoses. AIMS: To examine whether personal recovery is transdiagnostic by studying narrative experiences in several diagnostic groups. METHODS: Thirty recovery narratives, retrieved from "Psychiatry Story Bank" (PSB) in the Netherlands, were analyzed by three coders using CHIME as a deductive framework. New codes were assigned using an inductive approach and member checks were performed after consensus was reached. RESULTS: All five CHIME dimensions were richly reported in the narratives, independent of diagnosis. Seven new domains were identified, such as "acknowledgement by diagnosis" and "gaining self-insight". These new domains were evaluated to fit well as subdomains within the original CHIME framework. On average, 54.2% of all narrative content was classified as experienced difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery stories from different diagnostic perspectives fit well into the CHIME framework, implying that personal recovery is a transdiagnostic concept. Difficulties should not be ignored in the context of personal recovery based on its substantial presence in the recovery narratives.

The Implementation of Recommender Systems for Mental Health Recovery Narratives: Evaluation of Use and Performance.

BACKGROUND: Recommender systems help narrow down a large range of items to a smaller, personalized set. NarraGive is a first-in-field hybrid recommender system for mental health recovery narratives, recommending narratives based on their content and narrator characteristics (using content-based filtering) and on narratives beneficially impacting other similar users (using collaborative filtering). NarraGive is integrated into the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) intervention, a web application providing access to the NEON Collection of recovery narratives. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the 3 recommender system algorithms used in NarraGive to inform future interventions using recommender systems for lived experience narratives. METHODS: Using a recently published framework for evaluating recommender systems to structure the analysis, we compared the content-based filtering algorithm and collaborative filtering algorithms by evaluating the accuracy (how close the predicted ratings are to the true ratings), precision (the proportion of the recommended narratives that are relevant), diversity (how diverse the recommended narratives are), coverage (the proportion of all available narratives that can be recommended), and unfairness (whether the algorithms produce less accurate predictions for disadvantaged participants) across gender and ethnicity. We used data from all participants in 2 parallel-group, waitlist control clinical trials of the NEON intervention (NEON trial: N=739; NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems [NEON-O] trial: N=1023). Both trials included people with self-reported mental health problems who had and had not used statutory mental health services. In addition, NEON trial participants had experienced self-reported psychosis in the previous 5 years. Our evaluation used a database of Likert-scale narrative ratings provided by trial participants in response to validated narrative feedback questions. RESULTS: Participants from the NEON and NEON-O trials provided 2288 and 1896 narrative ratings, respectively. Each rated narrative had a median of 3 ratings and 2 ratings, respectively. For the NEON trial, the content-based filtering algorithm performed better for coverage; the collaborative filtering algorithms performed better for accuracy, diversity, and unfairness across both gender and ethnicity; and neither algorithm performed better for precision. For the NEON-O trial, the content-based filtering algorithm did not perform better on any metric; the collaborative filtering algorithms performed better on accuracy and unfairness across both gender and ethnicity; and neither algorithm performed better for precision, diversity, or coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical population may be associated with recommender system performance. Recommender systems are susceptible to a wide range of undesirable biases. Approaches to mitigating these include providing enough initial data for the recommender system (to prevent overfitting), ensuring that items can be accessed outside the recommender system (to prevent a feedback loop between accessed items and recommended items), and encouraging participants to provide feedback on every narrative they interact with (to prevent participants from only providing feedback when they have strong opinions).

Perception and appropriation of a web-based recovery narratives intervention: qualitative interview study.

Introduction: Mental health recovery narratives are widely available to the public, and can benefit people affected by mental health problems. The NEON Intervention is a novel web-based digital health intervention providing access to the NEON Collection of recovery narratives. The NEON Intervention was found to be effective and cost-effective in the NEON-O Trial for people with nonpsychosis mental health problems (ISRCTN63197153), and has also been evaluated in the NEON Trial for people with psychosis experience (ISRCTN11152837). We aimed to document NEON Intervention experiences, through an integrated process evaluation. Methods: Analysis of interviews with a purposive sample of intervention arm participants who had completed trial participation. Results: We interviewed 34 NEON Trial and 20 NEON-O Trial participants (mean age 40.4 years). Some users accessed narratives through the NEON Intervention almost daily, whilst others used it infrequently or not at all. Motivations for trial participation included: exploring the NEON Intervention as an alternative or addition to existing mental health provision; searching for answers about mental health experiences; developing their practice as a mental health professional (for a subset who were mental health professionals); claiming payment vouchers. High users (10 + narrative accesses) described three forms of appropriation: distracting from difficult mental health experiences; providing an emotional boost; sustaining a sense of having a social support network. Most participants valued the scale of the NEON Collection (n = 659 narratives), but some found it overwhelming. Many felt they could describe the characteristics of a desired narrative that would benefit their mental health. Finding a narrative meeting their desires enhanced engagement, but not finding one reduced engagement. Narratives in the NEON Collection were perceived as authentic if they acknowledged the difficult reality of mental health experiences, appeared to describe real world experiences, and described mental health experiences similar to those of the participant. Discussion: We present recommendations for digital health interventions incorporating collections of digital narratives: (1) make the scale and diversity of the collection visible; (2) provide delivery mechanisms that afford appropriation; (3) enable contributors to produce authentic narratives; (4) enable learning by healthcare professionals; (5) consider use to address loneliness.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online recorded recovery narratives in improving quality of life for people with non-psychotic mental health problems: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Narratives describing first-hand experiences of recovery from mental health problems are widely available. Emerging evidence suggests that engaging with mental health recovery narratives can benefit people experiencing mental health problems, but no randomized controlled trial has been conducted as yet. We developed the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web application providing self-guided and recommender systems access to a collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives (n=659). We investigated whether NEON Intervention access benefited adults experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems by conducting a pragmatic parallel-group randomized trial, with usual care as control condition. The primary endpoint was quality of life at week 52 assessed by the Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA). Secondary outcomes were psychological distress, hope, self-efficacy, and meaning in life at week 52. Between March 9, 2020 and March 26, 2021, we recruited 1,023 participants from across England (the target based on power analysis was 994), of whom 827 (80.8%) identified as White British, 811 (79.3%) were female, 586 (57.3%) were employed, and 272 (26.6%) were unemployed. Their mean age was 38.4±13.6 years. Mood and/or anxiety disorders (N=626, 61.2%) and stress-related disorders (N=152, 14.9%) were the most common mental health problems. At week 52, our intention-to-treat analysis found a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.01-0.26, p=0.041) in the MANSA score between the intervention and control groups, corresponding to a mean change of 1.56 scale points per participant, which indicates that the intervention increased quality of life. We also detected a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.05-0.40, p=0.014) between the groups in the score on the "presence of meaning" subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, corresponding to a mean change of 1.1 scale points per participant. We found an incremental gain of 0.0142 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% credible interval: 0.0059 to 0.0226) and a £178 incremental increase in cost (95% credible interval: -£154 to £455) per participant, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,526 per QALY compared with usual care. This was lower than the £20,000 per QALY threshold used by the National Health Service in England, indicating that the intervention would be a cost-effective use of health service resources. In the subgroup analysis including participants who had used specialist mental health services at baseline, the intervention both reduced cost (-£98, 95% credible interval: -£606 to £309) and improved QALYs (0.0165, 95% credible interval: 0.0057 to 0.0273) per participant as compared to usual care. We conclude that the NEON Intervention is an effective and cost-effective new intervention for people experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems.

Pragmatic, feasibility randomized controlled trial of a recorded mental health recovery narrative intervention: narrative experiences online intervention for informal carers (NEON-C).

Introduction: Informal carers of people with mental health problems often have unmet support needs. Mental health recovery narratives are increasingly accessible, but their relevance to and effect on informal carers have been minimally investigated. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a first-in-field intervention that provides informal carers with access to a diverse collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives. This trial aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the NEON Intervention for informal carers. Methods: This study involved a two-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial. Carers were randomly assigned to receiving versus not receiving the NEON Intervention. The feasibility aspects investigated included the acceptability of the intervention and of randomization, trial processes, engagement rates, recruitment procedures, attrition, sample size estimation, identification of candidate primary and secondary outcomes, and the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted. Findings: A total of 121 carers were eligible, of whom 54 were randomized (intervention: 27, control: 27). Twelve-month follow-up data were available for 36 carers. Carers accessed a mean of 25 narratives over a 12-month period, and the intervention group, compared with the control group, reported a small effect on hope and a moderate effect on the presence of meaning in life. Five modifications were recommended to improve the user experience, applicability, and trial processes. Discussion: The NEON Intervention is feasible and acceptable. Significant refinement of the NEON Intervention and trial processes is required to personalize and ensure applicability to carers. Further feasibility testing is recommended prior to a definitive trial.