A Pre-Post Evaluation of OpenMinds: a Sustainable, Peer-Led Mental Health Literacy Programme in Universities and Secondary Schools.

Engaging young people in the design and delivery of mental health education could lead to more effective interventions; however, few of these interventions have been evaluated. This study aimed to gain preliminary evidence with regards to the efficacy and acceptability of OpenMinds: a peer-designed and facilitated mental health literacy programme for university and secondary school students. The programme involves a structured programme of education and training for university medical students, who then deliver workshops in secondary schools. Pre- and post-surveys were completed by 234 school students who received two workshops and 40 university medical students who completed the OpenMinds programme and delivered the workshops. The main outcomes in both groups were components of mental health literacy (non-stigmatising attitudes, knowledge, social distance and helping attitudes). Perceived teaching efficacy and interest in mental health careers (university medical students) and workshop acceptability (school students) were also examined. University and school student participation in OpenMinds was associated with significant improvements in three of four mental health literacy elements in both samples. Knowledge and attitudes improved in both samples, social distance improved only in the university sample and knowledge of helping behaviours increased in the school sample. University students' perceived teaching efficacy improved but there was no change in their reported interest in pursuing psychiatry in their career. Acceptability was high; over 70% of the school students agreed that they enjoyed the workshops and liked being taught by a university student. This study provides preliminary evidence for the acceptability and efficacy of OpenMinds as a sustainable peer-led model of mental health education for young people. The OpenMinds programme is ready for efficacy testing in a randomised trial.

The association between ethnicity and care pathway for children with emotional problems in routinely collected child and adolescent mental health services data.

Adults from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are less likely to access mental health services through voluntary care pathways and are more likely to access through compulsory ones. The aim of the present research was to explore the association between ethnicity and care pathway through child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), in terms of reason for referral and case closure, in children presenting with emotional problems. A sample of N = 11,592 children from 26 CAMHS was taken from a national routinely collected dataset (56 % female; 7 % aged 0-5 years, 40 % 6-12 years, 53 % 13-18 years, and <1 % 19-25 years). Multinomial logistic regressions showed that BAME children were consistently more likely to be referred to CAMHS through education, social, and other services than primary care, compared to White British children (odds ratio (OR) = 1.52-9.96, p < .001) and they were less likely to end treatment due to child and family non-attendance (OR = 0.59-0.79, p < .05). Similar to adults, children from BAME groups may be more likely to access CAMHS through compulsory than voluntary care pathways.

Comparison of indices of clinically meaningful change in child and adolescent mental health services: difference scores, reliable change, crossing clinical thresholds and 'added value' - an exploration using parent rated scores on the SDQ.

BACKGROUND: Establishing what constitutes clinically significant change is important both for reviewing the function of services and for reflecting on individual clinical practice. A range of methods for assessing change exist, but it remains unclear which are best to use and under which circumstances. METHOD: This paper reviews four indices of change [difference scores (DS), crossing clinical threshold (CCT), reliable change index (RCI) and added value scores (AVS)] drawing on outcome data for 9764 young people from child and adolescent mental health services across England. RESULTS: Looking at DS, the t-test for time one to time two scores indicated a significant difference between baseline and follow up scores, with a standardised effect size of d = 0.40. AVS analysis resulted in a smaller effect size of 0.12. Analysis of those crossing the clinical threshold showed 21.2% of cases were classified as recovered, while 5.5% were classified as deteriorated. RCI identified 16.5% of cases as showing reliable improvement and 2.3% of cases as showing reliable deterioration. Across RCI and CCT 80.5% of the pairings were exact (i.e., identified in the same category using each method). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the level of agreement across approaches is at least moderate; however, the estimated extent of change varied to some extent based on the index used. Each index may be appropriate for different contexts: CCT and RCI may be best suited to use for individual case review; whereas DS and AVS may be more appropriate for case-mix adjusted national reporting.

Moral foundations in autistic people and people with systemizing minds.

BACKGROUND: Do autistic people share the same moral foundations as typical people? Here we built on two prominent theories in psychology, moral foundations theory and the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory, to observe the nature of morality in autistic people and systemizers. METHODS: In dataset 1, we measured five foundations of moral judgements (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity) measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) in autistic (n = 307) and typical people (n = 415) along with their scores on the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ). In dataset 2, we measured these same five foundations along with E-S cognitive types (previously referred to as "brain types") in a large sample of typical people (N = 7595). RESULTS: Autistic people scored the same on Care (i.e., concern for others) as typical people (h1). Their affective empathy (but not their cognitive empathy) scores were positively correlated with Care. Autistic people were more likely to endorse Fairness (i.e., giving people what they are owed, and treating them with justice) over Care (h2). Their systemizing scores were positively correlated with Fairness. Autistic people or those with a systemizing cognitive profile had lower scores on binding foundations: Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity (h3). Systemizing in typical people was positively correlated with Liberty (i.e., hypervigilance against oppression), which is a sixth moral foundation (h4). Although the majority of people in all five E-S cognitive types self-identified as liberal, with a skew towards empathizing (h5), the percentage of libertarians was highest in systemizing cognitive types (h6). E-S cognitive types accounted for 2 to 3 times more variance for Care than did sex. LIMITATIONS: Our study is limited by its reliance on self-report measures and a focus on moral judgements rather than behavior or decision-making. Further, only dataset 2 measured political identification, therefore we were unable to assess politics in autistic people. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that some moral foundations in autistic people are similar to those in typical people (despite the difficulties in social interaction that are part of autism), and some are subtly different. These subtle differences vary depending on empathizing and systemizing cognitive types.