"Where Is My Place?" A Qualitative Study of Gay Men's Experiences of Social Support, Relationships and Community in Relation to Psychological Wellbeing and Distress.

This study aimed to understand young gay men's experiences of social support, relationships, community networks, talking about psychological distress, and their impact on distress and wellbeing. Eight verbatim transcriptions from semi-structured interviews with gay men aged 18-35 years were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Three super-ordinate themes were developed; 1) Growing up gay in a straight world: Developmental traumas, regarding men's experiences of homophobic abuse and exclusion and the internalized impact on their identities and identity concealment. 2) Belonging and not belonging within LGBTQ+ communities, encompassing men's varied experiences of LGBTQ+ communities and the corresponding impacts upon their wellbeing. 3) Relational responses to rejection, describing how men made sense of and managed their relationships within the context of the developmental traumas they had experienced growing up as gay men. These findings illuminate the psychological impact of experiencing multiple developmental traumas related to one's identity as a gay man, and how this influences lifelong relational behavior; and how experiences of social support, relationships and LGBTQ+ communities influence men's mental health. They provide a strong rationale for psychological interventions to acknowledge and address gay men's unique and adverse social experiences within their relationships, communities and societies.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial. SETTING: Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small. LIMITATIONS: Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosis is a mental health problem that can involve hearing, seeing or believing things that others do not. Although many young people who experience psychosis recover well from their first episode of psychosis, others can have more serious, longer-lasting problems. There has not been a large amount of research into the treatment of psychosis in young people; therefore, it is important to test different treatments against each other in clinical trials. 'Feasibility' trials, such as the one we carried out [Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS)], test whether or not it is possible to run larger trials. MAPS was a small trial that was run in seven locations in the UK. People who were aged 14­18 years and experiencing psychosis were able to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive psychological treatment (cognitive­behavioural therapy and optional family therapy), antipsychotic medication or a combination of both. All of the participants met with a trial research assistant three times for assessments about well-being and symptoms. Some clinicians, participants and family members were interviewed about their opinions of the trial and treatments. The trial also had patient and public involvement; service user researchers were involved in design, interview data collection, analysis and report writing. Sixty-one young people took part in MAPS, which was around 68% of our target number. In total, 84% completed the assessments with research assistants. The results showed that, overall, all treatments were acceptable to young people and their family members. However, a higher percentage of young people actually received the 'minimum dose' of psychological treatment than the 'minimum dose' of antipsychotic medication (82% vs. 65%). Results showed that it was possible to run a larger trial such as this. However, some changes would be required to run a larger trial, such as location (focusing on urban areas with well established early intervention in psychosis teams), increasing involvement of psychiatrists and increasing the age limit for participation to 25 years.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of CBT vs antipsychotics vs both in 14-18-year-olds: Managing Adolescent first episode Psychosis: a feasibility study (MAPS).

BACKGROUND: Adolescent-onset psychosis is associated with more severe symptoms and poorer outcomes than adult-onset psychosis. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) should be offered a combination of antipsychotic medication (APs), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention (FI). The evidence for APs in treating psychosis is limited in adolescents compared to adults. Nevertheless, it indicates that APs can reduce overall symptoms in adolescents but may cause more severe side effects, including cardiovascular and metabolic effects, than in adults. CBT and FI can improve outcomes in adults, but there are no studies of psychological interventions (PI) in patients under 18 years old. Given this limited evidence base, NICE made a specific research recommendation for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of APs versus PI versus both treatments for adolescent FEP. METHODS/DESIGN: The current study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting such a trial by recruiting 14-18-year-olds with a first episode of psychosis into a feasibility prospective randomised open blinded evaluation (PROBE) design, three-arm, randomised controlled trial of APs alone versus PI alone versus a combination of both treatments. We aimed to recruit 90 participants from Early Intervention and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams in seven UK sites. APs were prescribed by participants' usual psychiatrists. PI comprised standardised cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention sessions. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to compare APs to PI in an adolescent population with FEP. Recruitment finished on 31 October 2018. The study faced difficulties with recruitment across most sites due to factors including clinician and service-user treatment preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trial with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433 . Registered on 27 February 2017.

Training tomorrow's doctors to explain 'medically unexplained' physical symptoms: An examination of UK medical educators' views of barriers and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Co-occuring physical symptoms, unexplained by organic pathology (known as Functional Syndromes, FS), are common and disabling presentations. However, FS is absent or inconsistently taught within undergraduate medical training. This study investigates the reasons for this and identifies potential solutions to improved implementation. METHODS: Twenty-eight medical educators from thirteen different UK medical schools participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis proceeded iteratively, and in parallel with data production. RESULTS: Barriers to implementing FS training are beliefs about the complexity of FS, tutors' negative attitudes towards FS, and FS being perceived as a low priority for the curriculum. In parallel participants recognised FS as ubiquitous within medical practice and erroneously assumed it must be taught by someone. They recommended that students should learn about FS through managed exposure, but only if tutors' negative attitudes and behaviour are also addressed. CONCLUSION: Negative attitudes towards FS by educators prevents designing and delivering effective education on this common medical presentation. Whilst there is recognition of the need to implement FS training, recommendations are multifaceted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Increased liaison between students, patients and educators is necessary to develop more informed and effective teaching methods for trainee doctors about FS and in order to minimise the impact of the hidden curriculum.

What are People's Experiences of a Novel Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Bipolar Disorders? A Qualitative Investigation with Participants on the TEAMS Trial.

Background Psychological interventions for bipolar disorders typically produce mixed outcomes and modest effects. The need for a more effective intervention prompted the development of a new cognitive behavioural therapy, based on an integrative cognitive model ('Think Effectively About Mood Swings' [TEAMS] therapy). Unlike previous interventions, TEAMS addresses current symptoms and comorbidities, and helps clients achieve long-term goals. A pilot randomized controlled trial (the TEAMS trial) of the therapy has recently concluded. This study explored participants' experiences of TEAMS, recommendations for improvement and experiences of useful changes post-therapy. Methods Fourteen TEAMS therapy participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Their accounts were analysed using interpretative thematic analysis. Two researchers coded the dataset independently. Member checks were conducted of the preliminary themes. Results Two overarching themes; 'useful elements of therapy' and 'changes from therapy' encompassed 12 emerging subthemes. Participants appreciated having opportunities to talk and described the therapy as person-centred and delivered by caring, approachable and skilled therapists. Some recommended more sessions than the 16 provided. Helpful therapeutic techniques were reported to be, normalization about moods, methods to increase understanding of moods, relapse-prevention, reappraisal techniques and metaphors. However, some did not find therapeutic techniques helpful. Post-therapy, many reported changes in managing mood swings more effectively and in their thinking (although some participants reported changes in neither). Many described increased acceptance of themselves and of having bipolar disorder, increased productivity and reduced anxiety in social situations. Conclusions The present study evaluates participants' therapy experiences in detail, including aspects of therapy viewed as helpful, and meaningful post-therapy outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: This is the first paper to qualitatively explore people's experiences of individual psychotherapy for bipolar disorders. It highlights elements of psychotherapy described as particularly helpful or unhelpful and the clinical changes viewed as most impactful. Participants reported benefitting in a number of ways from TEAMS therapy. They valued learning to reappraise and problem-solve situations and manage moods. Participants identified TEAMS techniques as helpful, such as exploring advantages and disadvantages of moods, and building healthy self-states.