The impact of reduced routine community mental healthcare on people from minority ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these. AIMS: To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare. METHOD: A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts. RESULTS: Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups' engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Antipsychotic Reduction and Discontinuation in Patients With Long-Term Schizophrenia and Psychosis in English Mental Health Trusts: The RADAR Study.

OBJECTIVES: The current recommended treatment for patients with recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and related conditions is antipsychotic medication. However, many antipsychotic users remain functionally impaired and experience serious physical and mental side effects. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of a gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy compared with maintenance treatment over 24 months from mental health services, health and social care, and societal perspectives. METHODS: Nineteen mental health trusts recruited patients to the Research into Antipsychotic Discontinuation and Reduction (RADAR) randomized controlled trial. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-5L, with years of full capability calculated from the patient-reported ICECAP-A. Mental health services use and medication was collected from medical records. Other resource use and productivity loss was collected using self-completed questionnaires. Costs were calculated from published sources. RESULTS: A total of 253 participants were randomized: 126 assigned to antipsychotic dose reduction and 127 to maintenance. There were no significant differences between arms in total costs for any perspectives. There were no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.123 to 0.052), whereas years of full capability were significantly lower in the reduction arm compared with the maintenance arm (baseline-adjusted difference: -0.103; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.014). The reduction strategy was dominated by maintenance for all analyses and was not likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy is cost-effective compared with maintenance over 2-years for patients with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders who are on long-term antipsychotics.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Public perspectives on inequality and mental health: A peer research study.

INTRODUCTION: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense-making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health. METHODS: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender-based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far-reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards-addressing long-standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems. CONCLUSION: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was peer-led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study.

Online peer support training to promote adolescents' emotional support skills, mental health and agency during COVID-19: Randomised controlled trial and qualitative evaluation.

Adolescents often look to their peers for emotional support, so it is critical that they are prepared to take on a supportive role, especially during a health crisis. Using a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN99248812, 28/05/2020), we tested the short-term efficacy of an online training programme to equip young people with skills to support to their peers' mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, one-hundred UK adolescents (aged 16-18) recruited through social media were randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate 5-day peer support training or a wait-list, via an independently generated allocation sequence. Primary outcomes were indicators of ability to help others (motivation, perceived skills, frequency of help provided, compassion to others and connectedness to peers). Secondary outcomes included emotional symptoms, mental wellbeing, and indicators of agency (civic engagement and self-efficacy). We also collected qualitative reports of participants' experience. Assessments were completed at baseline and 1 week post randomisation (primary endpoint), and up to 4 weeks post randomisation (training group only). The training increased support-giving skills, frequency of providing support, compassion and peer connectedness (medium-large-effect sizes), but not motivation to provide support, 1 week post randomisation, compared to controls. Gains in the training group were maintained 4 weeks post randomisation. Training also improved adolescents' mental health and agency, and qualitative reports revealed further positive outcomes including increased self-care and empowerment. Leveraging digital platforms that are familiar to young people, peer support training has the potential to enable adolescents to support their own and their peers' mental wellbeing during a health crisis.

Shared goals for mental health research: what, why and when for the 2020s.

Mental health problems bring substantial individual, community and societal costs and the need for innovation to promote good mental health and to prevent and treat mental health problems has never been greater. However, we know that research findings can take up to 20 years to implement. One way to push the pace is to focus researchers and funders on shared, specific goals and targets. We describe a consultation process organised by the Department of Health and Social Care and convened by the Chief Medical Officer to consider high level goals for future research efforts and to begin to identify UK-specific targets to measure research impact. The process took account of new scientific methods and evidence, the UK context with a universal health care system (the NHS) and the embedded research support from the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, as well as the views of individual service users and service user organisations. The result of the consultation is a set of four overarching goals with the potential to be measured at intervals of three, five or ten years.

Covid-19, social restrictions, and mental distress among young people: a UK longitudinal, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a critical period for social and emotional development. We sought to examine the impacts of Covid-19 and related social restrictions and school closures on adolescent mental health, particularly among disadvantaged, marginalised, and vulnerable groups. METHODS: We analysed four waves of data - 3 pre-Covid-19 (2016-2019) and 1 mid-Covid-19 (May-Aug 2020; n, 1074; 12-18 years old, >80% minority ethnic groups, 25% free school meals) from REACH (Resilience, Ethnicity, and AdolesCent Mental Health), an adolescent cohort based in inner-London, United Kingdom. Mental health was assessed using validated measures at each time point. We estimated temporal trends in mental distress and examined variations in changes in distress, pre- to mid-Covid-19, by social group, and by pre- and mid-pandemic risks. RESULTS: We found no evidence of an overall increase in mental distress midpandemic (15.9%, 95% CI: 13.0, 19.4) compared with prepandemic (around 18%). However, there were variations in changes in mental distress by subgroups. There were modest variations by social group and by pre-Covid risks (e.g., a small increase in distress among girls (b [unstandardised beta coefficient] 0.42 [-0.19, 1.03]); a small decrease among boys (b - 0.59 [-1.37, 0.19]); p for interaction .007). The most notable variations were by midpandemic risks: that is, broadly, increases in distress among those reporting negative circumstances and impacts (e.g., in finances, housing, social support and relationships, and daily routines) and decreases in distress among those reporting positive impacts. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that mental distress increased among young people who were most negatively impacted by Covid-19 and by related social restrictions during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom.

An analysis of views about supported reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment among people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication can reduce psychotic symptoms and risk of relapse in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, but it is not always effective and adverse effects can be significant. We know little of patients' views about continuing or discontinuing antipsychotic treatment. AIMS: To explore the views of people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders about continuing their antipsychotic medication or attempting to reduce or discontinue this medication with clinical support. METHODS: We collected quantitative and qualitative data by conducting semi-structured interviews in London, UK. Factors predicting a desire to discontinue medication were explored. Content analysis of qualitative data was undertaken. RESULTS: We interviewed 269 participants. 33% (95% CI, 27 to 39%) were content with taking long-term antipsychotic medication. Others reported they took it reluctantly (19%), accepted it on a temporary basis (24%) or actively disliked it (18%). 31% (95% CI, 25 to 37%) said they would like to try to stop medication with professional support, and 45% (95% CI, 39 to 51%) wanted the opportunity to reduce medication. People who wanted to discontinue had more negative attitudes towards the medication but were otherwise similar to other participants. Wanting to stop or reduce medication was motivated mainly by adverse effects and health concerns. Professional support was identified as potentially helpful to achieve reduction. CONCLUSIONS: This large study reveals that patients are commonly unhappy about the idea of taking antipsychotics on a continuing or life-long basis. Professional support for people who want to try to reduce or stop medication is valued.

A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

Acute day units for mental health crises: a qualitative study of service user and staff views and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Acute Day Units (ADUs) provide intensive, non-residential, short-term treatment for adults in mental health crisis. They currently exist in approximately 30% of health localities in England, but there is little research into their functioning or effectiveness, and how this form of crisis care is experienced by service users. This qualitative study explores the views and experiences of stakeholders who use and work in ADUs. METHODS: We conducted 36 semi-structured interviews with service users, staff and carers at four ADUs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Peer researchers collected data and contributed to analysis, and a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) provided perspectives across the whole project. RESULTS: Both service users and staff provided generally positive accounts of using or working in ADUs. Valued features were structured programmes that provide routine, meaningful group activities, and opportunities for peer contact and emotional, practical and peer support, within an environment that felt safe. Aspects of ADU care were often described as enabling personal and social connections that contribute to shifting from crisis to recovery. ADUs were compared favourably to other forms of home- and hospital-based acute care, particularly in providing more therapeutic input and social contact. Some service users and staff thought ADU lengths of stay should be extended slightly, and staff described some ADUs being under-utilised or poorly-understood by referrers in local acute care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-site qualitative data suggests that ADUs provide a distinctive and valued contribution to acute care systems, and can avoid known problems associated with other forms of acute care, such as low user satisfaction, stressful ward environments, and little therapeutic input or positive peer contact. Findings suggest there may be grounds for recommending further development and more widespread implementation of ADUs to increase choice and effective support within local acute care systems.

Prevalence of conduct problems and social risk factors in ethnically diverse inner-city schools.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, around 5% of 11-16-year olds experience conduct problems of clinical importance. However, there are limited data on prevalence of conduct problems by ethnic group, and how putative social risk factors may explain any variations in prevalence. This study has two main aims: (1) to estimate the prevalence and nature of conduct problems overall, and by ethnic group and gender, among adolescents in diverse inner-city London schools; (2) to assess the extent to which putative risk factors - racial discrimination, socioeconomic status, parental control, and troublesome friends - explain any observed differences in prevalence of conduct problems between ethnic groups. METHODS: This study uses baseline data from REACH, an accelerated cohort study of adolescent mental health in inner-city London. Self-report questionnaire data were collected on conduct problems and a range of distinct putative social risk factors (including racial discrimination, free school meals, troublesome friends, and parental care and control). A total of 4353 pupils, 51% girls, aged 11-14 participated. We estimated prevalence of conduct problems and used multilevel logistic regression to examine differences by ethnicity and gender and associations with putative risk factors. RESULTS: Prevalence of conduct problems in inner-city schools was around three times higher than reported in national studies (i.e., 16% [95%CI: 15·2-17·5] vs. 5% [95%CI 4·6-5·9]). Compared with overall prevalence, conduct problems were lower among Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi (RR: 0.53 [95% CI:0.31-0.87]) and white British (RR: 0.65 [0.51-0.82]) groups, and higher among black Caribbean (RR: 1.39 [95%CI:1.19-1.62]) and mixed white and black (RR: 1.29 [95% CI: 1.02-1.60]) groups. Risk of conduct problems was higher among those who were exposed to racial discrimination compared with those who were not (RR: 1.95 [95% CI: 1.59-2.31]). CONCLUSIONS: Conduct problems are markedly more common in inner-city schools, and variations in the prevalence of conduct problems are, to some extent, rooted in modifiable social contexts and experiences, such as experiences of racial discrimination.

Keeping well in a COVID-19 crisis: a qualitative study formulating the perspectives of mental health service users and carers.

BACKGROUND: People with existing mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable to the psychological effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. But their positive and negative appraisals, and coping behaviour could prevent or ameliorate future problems. OBJECTIVE: To explore the emotional experiences, thought processes and coping behaviours of people with existing mental health problems and carers living through the pandemic. METHODS: UK participants who identified as a mental health service user (N18), a carer (N5) or both (N8) participated in 30-minute semi-structured remote interviews (31 March 2020 to 9 April 2020). The interviews investigated the effects of social distancing and self-isolation on mental health and the ways in which people were coping. Data were analysed using a framework analysis. Three service user researchers charted data into a framework matrix (consisting of three broad categories: "emotional responses", "thoughts" and "behaviours") and then used an inductive process to capture other contextual themes. RESULTS: Common emotional responses were fear, sadness and anger but despite negative emotions and uncertainty appraisals, participants described efforts to cope and maintain their mental wellbeing. This emphasised an increased reliance on technology, which enabled social contact and occupational or leisure activities. Participants also spoke about the importance of continued and adapted mental health service provision, and the advantages and disadvantages associated with changes in their living environment, life schedule and social interactions. CONCLUSION: This study builds on a growing number of qualitative accounts of how mental health service users and carers experienced and coped with extreme social distancing measures early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than a state of helplessness this study contains a clear message of resourcefulness and resilience in the context of fear and uncertainty.

Demographic predictors of wellbeing in Carers of people with psychosis: secondary analysis of trial data.

BACKGROUND: Carers of people with psychosis are at a greater risk of physical and mental health problems compared to the general population. Yet, not all carers will experience a decline in health. This predicament has provided the rationale for research studies exploring what factors predict poor wellbeing in carers of people with psychosis. Our study builds on previous research by testing the predictive value of demographic variables on carer wellbeing within a single regression model. METHODS: To achieve this aim, we conducted secondary analysis on two trial data sets that were merged and recoded for the purposes of this study. RESULTS: Contrary to our hypotheses, only carer gender and age predicted carer wellbeing; with lower levels of carer wellbeing being associated with being female or younger (aged under 50). However, the final regression model explained only 11% of the total variance. CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions for future research are discussed in light of the limitations inherent in secondary analysis studies. Further research is needed where sample sizes are sufficient to explore the interactive and additive impact of other predictor variables.

Influences on participation in a programme addressing loneliness among people with depression and anxiety: findings from the Community Navigator Study.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is associated with negative outcomes, including increased mortality and is common among people with mental health problems. This qualitative study, which was carried out as part of a feasibility trial, aimed to understand what enables and hinders people with severe depression and/or anxiety under the care of secondary mental health services in the United Kingdom to participate in the Community Navigator programme, and make progress with feelings of depression, anxiety and loneliness. The programme consisted of up to ten meetings with a Community Navigator and three optional group sessions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with participants (n = 19) shortly after programme completion. A co-produced two-stage qualitative approach, involving narrative and reflexive thematic analysis, was undertaken by members of the study's working group, which included experts by experience, clinicians and researchers. RESULTS: The narrative analysis showed that individuals have varied goals, hold mixed feelings about meeting other people and define progress differently. From the thematic analysis, six themes were identified that explained facilitators and challenges to participating in the programme: desire to connect with others; individual social confidence; finding something meaningful to do; the accessibility of resources locally; the timing of the programme; and the participant's relationship with the Community Navigator. CONCLUSIONS: We found that people with severe depression and/or anxiety supported by secondary mental health services may want to address feelings of loneliness but find it emotionally effortful to do so and a major personal challenge. This emotional effort, which manifests in individuals differently, can make it hard for participants to engage with a loneliness programme, though it was through facing personal challenges that a significant sense of achievement was felt. Factors at the individual, interpersonal and structural level, that enable or hinder an individual's participation should be identified early, so that people are able to make the best use out of the Community Navigator or other similar programmes.

IMPlementation of An online Relatives' Toolkit for psychosis or bipolar (IMPART study): iterative multiple case study to identify key factors impacting on staff uptake and use.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential of digital health interventions to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives, and substantial investment in their development, there is little evidence of successful implementation into clinical practice. We report the first implementation study of a digital health intervention: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT), into routine mental healthcare. Our main aim was to identify critical factors affecting staff uptake and use of this online self-management tool for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar. METHODS: A mixed-methods, theory-driven (Normalisation Process Theory), iterative multiple case study approach using qualitative analysis of interviews with staff and quantitative reporting of uptake. Carer researchers were part of the research team. RESULTS: In all, 281 staff and 159 relatives from Early Intervention teams across six catchment areas (cases) in England registered on REACT; 129 staff took part in qualitative interviews. Staff were positive about REACT helping services improve support and meet clinical targets. Implementation was hindered by: high staff caseloads and difficulties prioritising carers; perception of REACT implementation as research; technical difficulties using REACT; poor interoperability with trust computer systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and training; restricted forum populations; staff fears of risk, online trolling, and replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT's long-term availability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, in partnership with the services they aim to support, and as part of a long term national strategy to co-develop integrated technology-enabled mental healthcare. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure they have adequate IT training, appropriate governance protocols for online working, and adequate mobile technologies. Wider contextual factors including adequate funding for mental health services and prioritisation of carer support, also need to be addressed for successful implementation of carer focussed digital interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study registration: ISCTRN 16267685.

Refining a model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychoses in England: a qualitative formative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Additional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95702682 , 26 October 2017.

Mental Health Recovery Narratives and Their Impact on Recipients: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Mental health recovery narratives are often shared in peer support work and antistigma campaigns. Internet technology provides access to an almost unlimited number of narratives, and yet little is known about how they affect recipients. The aim of this study was to develop a conceptual framework characterizing the impact of recovery narratives on recipients. METHOD: A systematic review of evidence about the impact of mental health recovery narratives was conducted. Searches used electronic databases (n = 9), reference tracking, hand-searching of selected journals (n = 2), grey literature searching, and expert consultation (n = 7). A conceptual framework was generated through a thematic analysis of included articles, augmented by consultation with a Lived Experience Advisory Panel. RESULTS: In total, 8137 articles were screened. Five articles were included. Forms of impact were connectedness, understanding of recovery, reduction in stigma, validation of personal experience, affective responses, and behavioural responses. Impact was moderated by characteristics of the recipient, context, and narrative. Increases in eating disorder behaviours were identified as a harmful response specific to recipients with eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health recovery narratives can promote recovery. Recovery narratives might be useful for clients with limited access to peers and in online interventions targeted at reducing social isolation in rural or remote locations, but support is needed for the processing of the strong emotions that can arise. Caution is needed for use with specific clinical populations. Protocol registration: Prospero-CRD42018090923.

Adult mental health provision in England: a national survey of acute day units.

BACKGROUND: Acute Day Units (ADUs) exist in some English NHS Trusts as an alternative to psychiatric inpatient admission. However, there is a lack of information about the number, configuration, and functioning of such units, and about the extent to which additional units might reduce admissions. This cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis of ADUs aimed to identify, categorise, and describe Acute Day Units (ADUs) in England. METHODS: English NHS Mental Health Trusts with ADUs were identified in a mapping exercise, and a questionnaire was distributed to ADU managers. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct models of service, and descriptive statistics are given to summarise the results of the survey questions. RESULTS: Two types of service were identified by the cluster analysis: NHS (n = 27; and voluntary sector services (n = 18). Under a third of NHS Trusts have access to ADUs. NHS services typically have multi-disciplinary staff teams, operate during office hours, offer a range of interventions (medication, physical checks, psychological interventions, group sessions, peer support), and had a median treatment period of 30 days. Voluntary sector services had mostly non-clinically qualified staff, and typically offered supportive listening on a one-off, drop-in basis. Nearly all services aim to prevent or reduce inpatient admissions. Voluntary sector services had more involvement by service users and carers in management and running of the service than NHS services. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NHS Trusts do not provide ADUs, despite their potential to reduce inpatient admissions. Further research of ADUs is required to establish their effectiveness and acceptability to service users, carers, and staff.

Improving recruitment to healthcare research studies: clinician judgements explored for opting mental health service users out of the time to change viewpoint survey.

BACKGROUND: There are significant challenges across the research pathway, including participant recruitment. This paper aims to explore the impact of clinician recruitment decision-making on sampling for a national mental health survey. METHOD: Clinical teams in 20 English mental healthcare provider organisations screened caseload lists, opting-out people whom, in their judgement, should not be approached to participate in a survey about stigma and discrimination. The reasons for each individual opted-out were requested. We assess these reasons against study recruitment criteria and investigated the impact of variations in opt-out rates on response rates and study findings. RESULTS: Over 4 years (2009-2012), 37% (28,592 people) of the total eligible sampling frame were excluded. Exclusions comprised three categories: clinical teams did not screen their lists within recruitment period (12,392 people: 44%); protocol-specified exclusions (8364 people: 29%); clinician opt-outs queried by research team (other reasons were given) (7836, 28%). Response rates were influenced by decision-making variations. CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of people were denied the opportunity to choose for themselves whether to participate or not in the Viewpoint Survey. The clinical research community, and their employing organisations, require support to better understand the value of research and best practice for research recruitment.

Personal well-being networks, social capital and severe mental illness: exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Connectedness is a central dimension of personal recovery from severe mental illness (SMI). Research reports that people with SMI have lower social capital and poorer-quality social networks compared to the general population.AimsTo identify personal well-being network (PWN) types and explore additional insights from mapping connections to places and activities alongside social ties. METHOD: We carried out 150 interviews with individuals with SMI and mapped social ties, places and activities and their impact on well-being. PWN types were developed using social network analysis and hierarchical k-means clustering of this data. RESULTS: Three PWN types were identified: formal and sparse; family and stable; and diverse and active. Well-being and social capital varied within and among types. Place and activity data indicated important contextual differences within social connections that were not found by mapping social networks alone. CONCLUSIONS: Place locations and meaningful activities are important aspects of people's social worlds. Mapped alongside social networks, PWNs have important implications for person-centred recovery approaches through providing a broader understanding of individual's lives and resources.Declaration of interestNone.