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.

"Nothing's changed, baby": How the mental health narratives of people with multiple and complex needs disrupt the recovery framework.

The dominant narrative in mental health policy and practice has shifted in the 21st century from one of chronic ill health to a 'recovery' orientation. Knowledge of recovery is based on narratives of people with lived experience of mental distress. However the narratives of people experiencing structural inequalities are under-represented in recovery research. Meanwhile, uses of recovery narratives have been critiqued by survivor-researchers as a co-option of lived experience to serve neoliberal agendas. To address these twin concerns, we undertook a performative narrative analysis of two 'recovery narratives' of people with multiple and complex needs, analysing their co-construction at immediate/micro and structural/macro levels. We found two contrasting responses to the invitation to tell a recovery story: a narrative of personal lack and a narrative of resistance. We demonstrate through reflexive worked examples how the genre of recovery narrative, focused on personal transformation, may function to occlude structural causes of mental distress and reinforce personal responsibility in the face of unchanging living conditions. We conclude that unacknowledged epistemological assumptions may contribute to co-constructing individualist accounts of recovery. A critical, reflexive approach, together with transparent researcher positionality, is imperative to avoid the epistemic injustice of a decontextualised form of recovery narrative.

Positive Mental Health of Migrants in the UK during COVID-19: A Review.

COVID-19 impacted the mental health of many people in the UK. The negative impact was especially substantial among vulnerable population groups, including migrants. While research has focused on the negative aspects of mental health during the pandemic, the positive mental health of migrants in the UK during COVID-19 remained to be evaluated. This review aimed to identify literature that focused on positive mental health, and thematically synthesise the findings to understand what positive mental health approaches were employed to support specific outcomes during the pandemic for them to survive in this difficult time. Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using terms including "mental health", "migrants", and "COVID-19". The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies. There were only two studies examining the positive mental health of UK migrants during this period. They describe approaches such as religious beliefs, passion for and acknowledgement of their job, learning new things, being physically active, social media, and social activities, producing outcomes such as inner peace, confidence, well-being, and a sense of belonging. The quality of the included studies was high. More research about positive mental health in migrants in the UK during the pandemic is needed.

Transient Elastography and Video Recovery Narrative Access to Support Recovery From Alcohol Misuse: Development of a Novel Intervention for Use in Community Alcohol Treatment Services.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from alcohol-related liver disease has risen significantly for 3 decades. Transient elastography (TE) is a noninvasive test providing a numerical marker of liver disease. Preliminary evidence suggests that TE can reduce alcohol consumption. The KLIFAD (does knowledge of liver fibrosis affect high-risk drinking behavior?) study has developed a complex intervention wherein people receiving alcohol treatment are provided with access to TE, accompanied by scripted feedback tailored to their disease state, and access to video narratives describing alcohol misuse recovery after receiving TE. Recovery narratives are included due to preliminary evidence from mental health studies which suggest that access to digital narratives describing recovery from mental health problems can help people affected by mental health problems, including through mechanisms with the potential to be transferable to an alcohol treatment setting, for example, by increasing hope for the future, enabling learning from the experience of others, or promoting help-seeking behaviors. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop the KLIFAD intervention to the point that it could be delivered in a feasibility trial and to produce knowledge relevant to clinicians and researchers developing interventions making use of biomarkers of disease. METHODS: In research activity 1, standardized scripted feedback was developed by this study, and then iterated through focus groups with people who had experienced alcohol misuse and TE, and key alcohol workers with experience in delivering TE. We report critical design considerations identified through focus groups, in the form of sensitizing concepts. In research activity 2, a video production guide was coproduced to help produce impactful video-based recovery narratives, and a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel was consulted for recommendations on how best to integrate recovery narratives into an alcohol treatment setting. We report PPI recommendations and an overview of video form and content. RESULTS: Through research activity 1, we learnt that patient feedback has not been standardized in prior use of TE, that receiving a numeric marker can provide an objective target that motivates and rewards recovery, and that key alcohol workers regularly tailor information to their clients. Through research activity 2, we developed a video production guide asking narrators what recovery means to them, what helped their recovery, and what they have learned about recovery. We produced 10 recovery narratives and collected PPI recommendations on maximizing impact and safety. These led to the production of unplanned videos presenting caregiver and clinician perspectives, and a choice to limit narrative availability to alcohol treatment settings, where support is available around distressing content. These choices have been evaluated through a feasibility randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN16922410]. CONCLUSIONS: Providing an objective target that motivates and rewards recovery is a candidate change mechanism for complex interventions integrating biomarkers of disease. Recovery narratives can contain distressing content; intervention developers should attend to safe usage. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054954.

Health service improvement using positive patient feedback: Systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings. METHODS: Empirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings. RESULTS: 68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable. CONCLUSION: Further interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback.

Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis.

Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Widening participation - recruitment methods in mental health randomised controlled trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Barriers to mental health research participation are well documented including distrust of services and research; and stigma surrounding mental health. They can contribute to a lack of diversity amongst participants in mental health research, which threatens the generalisability of knowledge. Given the recent widespread use of the internet in medical research, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of key partners on the use of online (e.g. social media) and offline (e.g. in-person) recruitment as an approach to improving diversity in mental health randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Face-to-face and online interviews/focus groups with researchers working in mental health and Patient and Public Involvement partners in the United Kingdom. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three focus groups and three interviews were conducted with a total N = 23 participants. Four overarching themes were identified: (1) recruitment reach; (2) Demographic factors that affect selection of recruitment method; (3) safety of technology, and; (4) practical challenges. Five main factors were identified that affect the choice of recruitment method: age, complexity of mental health problem and stigma, cultural and ethnicity differences and digital divide. The use of online methods was considered more accessible to people who may feel stigmatised by their mental health condition and with a benefit of reaching a wider population. However, a common view amongst participants was that online methods require closer data monitoring for quality of responders, are not fully secure and less trustworthy compared to offline methods that enable participants to build relationships with health providers. Funding, staff time and experience, organisational support, and technical issues such as spam or phishing emails were highlighted as practical challenges facing online recruitment. All participants agreed that using a hybrid approach tailored to the population under study is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the importance of offering a flexible and multifaceted recruitment approach by integrating online with offline methods to support inclusivity and widening participation in mental health research. The findings will be used to develop considerations for researchers designing RCTs to improve recruitment in mental health research.

Application and Extension of the Alcohol Recovery Narratives Conceptual Framework.

Recovery narratives are personal stories of health problems and recovery. A systematic review proposed a conceptual framework characterising alcohol misuse recovery narratives, consisting of eight principal dimensions, each with types and subtypes. The current study aims to apply and extend this preliminary conceptual framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect alcohol misuse recovery narratives from adult participants. A two-stage inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach was used to assess the relevance of the dimensions and types included in the preliminary conceptual framework and identify new components. The sample consisted of 11 participants from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds who had previously displayed varying degrees of alcohol misuse. All conceptual framework dimensions (genre, identity, recovery setting, drinking trajectories, drinking behaviours and traits, stages, spirituality and religion, and recovery experience) were present in the collected narratives. Three dimensions were extended by adding types and subtypes. Whilst the existing conceptual framework fitted the collected narratives, a new dimension describing the alcohol environment was required to fully characterise narratives. Types included in the alcohol environment dimension were policy and practice and social dynamics. The extended framework could guide the production of resources enabling clinicians to engage with narratives shared by their clients.

Does knowledge of liver fibrosis affect high-risk drinking behaviour (KLIFAD): an open-label pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Background: Early identification followed by effective behaviour interventions is pivotal to changing the natural history of alcohol-related liver disease. We examined the feasibility of using transient elastography based advice and alcohol recovery video stories (ARVS) to change drinking behaviour in community alcohol services. Methods: A feasibility randomised control trial (RCT) was conducted in three community alcohol services. Adults 18+ years presenting with a primary alcohol problem were randomised (1:1) to receive either usual care (control group) or usual care and the KLIFAD Intervention, consisting of advice tailored to liver stiffness measure and access to ARVS (intervention group). Data were collected at baseline and six months. To establish definitive trial feasibility, recruitment and retention rates, study procedure safety and extent of effectiveness were measured (Start date: 02.10.2019, End date: 30.11.2022, ISRCTN.com: 16922410). Findings: 382 service users were screened, 184 were randomised (intervention: 93, control: 91), and baseline data were collected for 128 (intervention: 71, control: 59). Six months follow-up data were available in 87 (intervention: 53, control: 34). Intervention compared to the control group had a longer duration of engagement with services (mean difference 8.6 days SD = 18.4), was more likely to complete the allocated treatment program and reduced or stop drinking (54.9% vs 43.9%) and reduce AUDIT category (71.7% vs 61.8%). There were no reported serious adverse reactions, one intervention group participant reported an increase in AUDIT category. Interpretation: Integration of transient elastography in community alcohol services is feasible. It may improve engagement with services, retention in clinical trials and supplement the reduction in self-reported alcohol consumption. A definitive RCT is supported. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR201146).

Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are an established element of mental health service provision internationally. Regulators have positioned the best practice standard of evidence as an interventional study with a comparator reflective of standard care, often operationalized as a pragmatic trial. DHIs can extend health provision to those not currently using mental health services. Hence, for external validity, trials might openly recruit a mixture of people who have used mental health services and people who have not. Prior research has demonstrated phenomenological differences in mental health experience between these groups. Some differences between service users and nonservice users might influence the change created by DHIs; hence, research should systematically examine these differences to inform intervention development and evaluation work. This paper analyzes baseline data collected in the NEON (Narrative Experiences Online; ie, for people with experience of psychosis) and NEON-O (NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems) trials. These were pragmatic trials of a DHI that openly recruited people who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. All participants were experiencing mental health distress. NEON Trial participants had experienced psychosis in the previous 5 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify differences in baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist mental health service use for NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial participants. METHODS: For both trials, hypothesis testing was used to compare baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the intention-to-treat sample who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. Bonferroni correction was applied to significance thresholds to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Significant differences in characteristics were identified in both trials. Compared with nonservice users (124/739, 16.8%), NEON Trial specialist service users (609/739, 82.4%) were more likely to be female (P<.001), older (P<.001), and White British (P<.001), with lower quality of life (P<.001) and lower health status (P=.002). There were differences in geographical distribution (P<.001), employment (P<.001; more unemployment), current mental health problems (P<.001; more psychosis and personality disorders), and recovery status (P<.001; more recovered). Current service users were more likely to be experiencing psychosis than prior service users. Compared with nonservice users (399/1023, 39%), NEON-O Trial specialist service users (614/1023, 60.02%) had differences in employment (P<.001; more unemployment) and current mental health problems (P<.001; more personality disorders), with lower quality of life (P<.001), more distress (P<.001), less hope (P<.001), less empowerment (P<.001), less meaning in life (P<.001), and lower health status (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental health service use history was associated with numerous differences in baseline characteristics. Investigators should account for service use in work to develop and evaluate interventions for populations with mixed service use histories. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04428-6.

Statistical analysis plans for two randomised controlled trials of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention: impact of receiving recorded mental health recovery narratives on quality of life in people experiencing psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O).

BACKGROUND: Mental health recovery narratives are a first-hand account of an individual's recovery from mental health distress, access to narratives can aid recovery. The NEON Intervention is a web-application providing access to a managed collection of narratives. We present the statistical analysis plan for assessing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention in improving quality of life at 1-year post-randomisation. We pay particular focus on the statistical challenges encountered due to the online nature of this trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: The NEON Intervention is assessed in two trial populations, one for people with experience of psychosis in the last 5 years, and mental health distress in the last six months (NEON Trial) and one for people with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O Trial). Both NEON trials are two-arm randomised controlled superiority trials comparing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention with usual care. The target sample size is 684 randomised participants for NEON and 994 for NEON-O. Participants were randomised centrally in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the mean score of subjective items on the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality-of-Life questionnaire (MANSA) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes are scores from the Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale, Meaning of Life questionnaire, CORE-10 questionnaire and Euroqol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L). CONCLUSION: This manuscript is the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the NEON trials. Any post hoc analysis, such as those requested by journal reviewers will be clearly labelled as such in the final trial reporting. Trial registration Both trials were prospectively registered. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered on 9 January 2020.

Assessing Diversity and Inclusivity is the Next Frontier in Mental Health Recovery Narrative Research and Practice.

Demand for digital health interventions is increasing in many countries. The use of recorded mental health recovery narratives in digital health interventions is becoming more widespread in clinical practice. Mental health recovery narratives are first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems, including struggles and successes over time. Helpful impacts of recorded mental health recovery narratives include connectedness with the narrative and validation of experiences. Possible harms include feeling disconnected and excluded from others. Diverse narrative collections from many types of narrators and describing multiple ways to recover are important to maximize the opportunity for service users to benefit through connection and to minimize the likelihood of harm. Mental health clinicians need to know whether narrative collections are sufficiently diverse to recommend to service users. However, no method exists for assessing the diversity and inclusivity of existing or new narrative collections. We argue that assessing diversity and inclusivity is the next frontier in mental health recovery narrative research and practice. This is important, but methodologically and ethically complex. In this viewpoint, we propose and evaluate one diversity and two inclusivity assessment methods. The diversity assessment method involves use of the Simpson Diversity Index. The two inclusivity assessment methods are based on comparator demographic rates and arbitrary thresholds, respectively. These methods were applied to four narrative collections as a case study. Refinements are needed regarding a narrative assessment tool in terms of its practicality and cultural adaptation.

Systematic review and citation content analysis of the CHIME framework for mental health recovery processes: recommendations for developing influential conceptual frameworks.

Objectives: To identify design features of the CHIME conceptual framework of mental health recovery which are associated with high rates of citation. Research Design and Methods: Systematic review of all citations of the Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning, and Empowerment (CHIME) framework of mental health recovery. Papers citing CHIME were screened and extracted from three citation databases. Citation content analysis was used to investigate associations between nine CHIME design features. Citations were investigated across six forms of visibility: all citations; Anglophone vs non-Anglophone; academic vs non-academic; academic discipline; professional group; and clinical population. Results: There were 915 eligible documents identified. Six CHIME framework design features met predefined thresholds for high levels of influence: (i) using a systematic review methodology for development, (ii) adopting a memorable acronym, (iii) having disaggregable components, and being unaligned to a (iv) particular discipline (i.e., transdisciplinary), (v) professional group, or (vi) diagnostic population. Documents from Anglophone countries were more likely to cite CHIME with reference to trans-professional (χ2=3.96, df=1, p=0.05) and ethnicity sub-group analysis (p=0.039) design features than non-Anglophone documents. Non-academic documents were more likely to cite the acronym design feature than academic papers (χ2=5.73, df=1, p=0.01). Public Health-related publications were more likely to cite CHIME within a trans-diagnostic framework (χ2=16.39, df=1, p<0.001) than other disciplines. Conclusions: The influence and impact of conceptual frameworks for recovery are increased when the framework is underpinned by a systematic review, includes disaggregable components which can be summarized using a memorable acronym, and when the framework is transdisciplinary, trans-professional, and trans-diagnostic.

Identifying and Categorizing Adverse Events in Trials of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Narrative Scoping Review of Trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry.

BACKGROUND: To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions. METHODS: The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting.

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.