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.

Post-traumatic growth in psychosis: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: People with psychosis report experiences of highly traumatic events. Positive change or post-traumatic growth (PTG) can occur as a result of traumatic experiences. Yet there is limited attention on PTG in psychosis, possibly due to the negative impact of psychotic symptoms on functioning and quality of life. The aim of this review was to identify significant correlates and mediators of PTG in psychosis, and to develop a conceptual framework synthesising facilitators of PTG in psychosis. METHOD: Ten electronic databases were searched in seven languages, and five journals and grey literature were searched in English. Quantitative studies were eligible if examining correlates, mediators, or the temporal relationship between PTG and one or more variables. Qualitative studies were eligible if describing PTG arising from experiences of psychosis. Findings from quantitative papers were grouped by analysis method, with significant correlates, mediators, and temporal relationships descriptively reported upon. Narrative synthesis was conducted on findings in qualitative papers. RESULTS: Thirty-seven papers were included. Significant correlates and mediators of PTG were identified. Mediators of PTG in psychosis included meaning in life, coping self-efficacy, core beliefs, and self-reported recovery. No studies describing the temporal relationship between PTG and psychosis were identified. The narrative synthesis identified seven facilitators of PTG in psychosis: Personal identity and strength, Receiving support, Opportunities and possibilities, Strategies for coping, Perspective shift, Emotional experience, and Relationships, giving the acronym PROSPER. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with psychosis can be supported to grow from traumatic experiences. Clinicians can support PTG through the provision of trauma-informed care that supports positively valued identity changes. For researchers, the findings provide an evidence-based theoretical framework for conceptualising PTG, which can be validated through longitudinal cohort studies and underpin the development of new clinical interventions.

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.