The School of Hard Talks: A telehealth parent training group for caregivers of adolescents and young adults.

AIM: A large body of evidence demonstrates the importance of the family environment in the developmental trajectory of mental illness in young people. Caregiver communication skills training represents a potential model for influencing the outcomes of adolescents and young adults struggling with emerging mental health and behavioural difficulties. The aim of the current study is to describe the development of a telehealth group training intervention for caregivers of adolescents and young adults, and to report the results of a pilot feasibility-effectiveness study that took place in 2020-2021. METHODS: The "School of Hard Talks" intervention consisted of 8 h of training in communication skills consistent with motivational interviewing techniques. All pilot study participants were assigned to receive the intervention. Outcomes of interest were family conflict, caregiver stress, caregiver self-efficacy and expressed emotion (EE). Participants were assessed three times: prior to the intervention, after the intervention and 12 weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 62 participants enrolled in the study, of whom 49 completed the intervention. Large, significant improvements were observed over time in all four domains of interest. Qualitative feedback from parents was very positive and added context to quantitative observations. CONCLUSIONS: The School of Hard Talks was a feasible and effective intervention targeting both caregiver wellbeing as well as important mechanisms of risk for youth psychopathology, namely family conflict and EE. Further research involving a larger sample and a control condition are needed to confirm these findings.

Changes in community providers' screening behaviours, referral practices, and clinical confidence following participation in an early psychosis educational campaign.

AIM: Successful delivery of care to individuals with early psychosis depends on the ability of community providers to identify and refer appropriate candidates for services. Although specialty centres commonly rely upon education and outreach campaigns to building bridges with community providers, few studies have examined the effectiveness of these campaigns or the mechanisms by which they may achieve their intended effects. METHODS: We surveyed community clinicians (N = 39) about their screening behaviours, referral practices, and confidence in managing early psychosis just before and 3-6 months after attending an educational event designed to promote recognition and quality treatment of early psychosis. RESULTS: Three to six months following attendance, providers reported screening a greater proportion of clients for early psychosis, referring a greater number of clients to specialty services, and feeling more confident in their ability to respond to clients with early psychosis. Increases in confidence following attendance were associated with corresponding increases in screening behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that outreach campaigns designed to enhance community providers' knowledge about early psychosis assessment and resources may be effective in promoting screening, referrals, and confidence in managing psychosis. Gains in provider confidence may contribute to increases in screening. Given the lack of control group and relatively short follow-up period, more research is needed to determine the effects of early psychosis educational events and the mechanisms by which they may promote successful treatment delivery for young people in need.

Implementation case study: Multifamily group intervention in first-episode psychosis programs.

AIM: Family interventions are a core component of first-episode psychosis (FEP) treatment; however, low implementation rates are consistently reported. As such, work is needed to understand the factors impacting real-world treatment delivery. The present paper describes the implementation of the McFarlane-model multifamily psychoeducational groups (MFG) in established FEP early intervention programs within a single state. The aims were to examine (a) training participation and implementation of MFG, (b) barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (c) modifications made to MFG. METHODS: Practitioners from six established FEP early intervention programs received in-person training and ongoing consultation in MFG. Training participation data were obtained via attendance and implementation outcomes were obtained from practitioner reports. Fifteen months following the initial training, practitioners reported on clinic-specific barriers, facilitators, and modifications across four categories (context, intervention, practitioner, and recipient). RESULTS: Twenty-three practitioners across six clinics received in-person training and were offered ongoing consultation to support implementation. Difficulties in starting MFG were salient as the earliest group was run 7 months after the initial training, thereby resulting in low overall frequency of groups. A number of barriers spanning context, intervention, practitioner, and recipient domains were noted, the majority of which were clinic-specific. Despite challenges, practitioners identified several facilitators and made modifications to the intervention and its delivery in service of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this implementation case study highlighted the challenges of delivering MFG in real-world FEP early intervention programs. Further, this paper emphasizes the value in identifying and addressing clinic-specific factors when implementing MFG.