A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial using link workers to improve dental visiting in people with severe mental illness: a protocol paper.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (e.g. psychosis, bipolar disorder) experience poor oral health compared to the general population as shown by more decayed, missing and filled teeth and a higher prevalence of periodontal disease. Attending dental services allows treatment of oral health problems and support for prevention. However, people with severe mental illness face multiple barriers to attending routine dental appointments and often struggle to access care. Link work interventions use non-clinical support staff to afford vulnerable populations the capacity, opportunity, and motivation to navigate use of services. The authors have co-developed with service users a link work intervention for supporting people with severe mental illness to access routine dental appointments. The Mouth Matters in Mental Health Study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention within the context of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) measuring outcomes related to the recruitment of participants, completion of assessments, and adherence to the intervention. The trial will closely monitor the safety of the intervention and trial procedures. METHODS: A feasibility RCT with 1:1 allocation to two arms: treatment as usual (control) or treatment as usual plus a link work intervention (treatment). The intervention consists of six sessions with a link worker over 9 months. Participants will be adults with severe mental illness receiving clinical input from secondary care mental health service and who have not attended a planned dental appointment in the past 3 years. Assessments will take place at baseline and after 9 months. The target recruitment total is 84 participants from across three NHS Trusts. A subset of participants and key stakeholders will complete qualitative interviews to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. DISCUSSION: The link work intervention aims to improve dental access and reduce oral health inequalities in people with severe mental illness. There is a dearth of research relating to interventions that attempt to improve oral health outcomes in people with mental illness and the collected feasibility data will offer insights into this important area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was preregistered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN13650779) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05545228).

Treating common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the primary care improving access to psychological therapies programme (the TYPPEX study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with nested economic and process evaluation of a training package for therapists.

INTRODUCTION: At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93895792.

Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse. OBJECTIVE: How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? DESIGN: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up. SETTINGS: Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user. INTERVENTIONS: The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse. RESULTS: We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference -4.29, 95% confidence interval -7.29 to -1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATIONS: This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3-0.4). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Relapse is a considerable problem for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Relapse can be predicted by early warning signs that are unique to the person. They include withdrawal, fear and paranoia. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Is it possible to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? WHAT DID WE DO?: We spoke with 88 mental health staff, 40 carers and 21 service users before we designed a system that used a mobile phone to help people monitor early warning signs. We included peer support to help people using the system reflect on their experiences. We hoped the overall system, called EMPOWER, would help people to be more in charge of their mental health. After consenting 86 people to the study, we were able to randomly assign 73 people either to use the EMPOWER system (42 people) or to receive their normal treatment alone (31 people). We used research measures over 1 year to help us better understand people's experiences. We also involved carers (for example family or friends) and mental health service providers in the research. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that it was possible to recruit people to the study and to gather research data. We also found that people used the EMPOWER system and found it acceptable. We found that those who used EMPOWER had a lower rate of relapse over 12 months than people who did not. They were also less likely to be fearful of relapse. We found that EMPOWER was likely to be cost-effective. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: This means that a study to investigate the effectiveness of a system to recognise and respond to early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia is possible.

The EMPOWER blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in Scotland and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Early warning signs monitoring by service users with schizophrenia has shown promise in preventing relapse but the quality of evidence is low. We aimed to establish the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS: This multicentre, feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to compare Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) with treatment as usual in community mental health services (CMHS) in Glasgow and Melbourne. CMHS were the unit of randomisation, selected on the basis of those that probably had five or more care coordinators willing to participate. Participants were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had a schizophrenia or related diagnosis confirmed via case records, were able to provide informed consent, had contact with CMHS, and had had a relapse within the previous 2 years. Participants were randomised within stratified clusters to EMPOWER or to continue their usual approach to care. EMPOWER blended a smartphone for active monitoring of early warning signs with peer support to promote self-management and clinical triage to promote access to relapse prevention. Main outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety, which was assessed through face-to-face interviews. App usage was assessed via the smartphone and self-report. Primary end point was 12 months. Participants, research assistants and other team members involved in delivering the intervention were not masked to treatment conditions. Assessment of relapse was done by an independent adjudication panel masked to randomisation group. The study is registered at ISRCTN (99559262). FINDINGS: We identified and randomised eight CMHS (six in Glasgow and two in Melbourne) comprising 47 care coordinators. We recruited 86 service users between Jan 19 and Aug 8, 2018; 73 were randomised (42 [58%] to EMPOWER and 31 [42%] to treatment as usual). There were 37 (51%) men and 36 (49%) women. At 12 months, main outcomes were collected for 32 (76%) of service users in the EMPOWER group and 30 (97%) of service users in the treatment as usual group. Of those randomised to EMPOWER, 30 (71%) met our a priori criterion of more than 33% adherence to daily monitoring that assumed feasibility. Median time to discontinuation of these participants was 31·5 weeks (SD 14·5). There were 29 adverse events in the EMPOWER group and 25 adverse events in the treatment as usual group. There were 13 app-related adverse events, affecting 11 people, one of which was serious. Fear of relapse was lower in the EMPOWER group than in the treatment as usual group at 12 months (mean difference -7·53 (95% CI -14·45 to 0·60; Cohen's d -0·53). INTERPRETATION: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse appears to be feasible, safe, and acceptable. A further main trial is merited. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention. AIMS: We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone. METHOD: A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals. OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions. DESIGN: A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months. RESULTS: The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Their problems are often long-standing and they often have difficulty doing 'structured activity', such as work, sports and leisure activities (e.g. going shopping or to the cinema). They often avoid such activities because of anxiety or low mood. Other barriers may include financial and practical issues, and stigma from activity providers. Non-participation in structured activity increases the risk that mental health problems will continue and prevent these young people from reaching meaningful goals. We tested whether or not social recovery therapy might help. This is a talking and activity therapy, in which young people (participants) work individually with a social recovery therapy therapist. Social recovery therapy aims to help participants identify what activities they would like to do, practise spending more time doing them, and work through barriers to maintaining increased activity. By improving structured activity, young people feel more hopeful and better able to manage their symptoms. However, social recovery therapy has never been evaluated properly using the best research methods. The best way to evaluate treatments like this is a randomised controlled trial in which participants are allocated by chance, like tossing a coin, to have the new therapy or not to have the therapy. Both groups are followed up for a period to see if the new therapy works. We tested social recovery therapy in this way. We also tested whether or not it was cost-effective. We recruited 270 16- to 25-year-old participants in Sussex, East Anglia and Manchester. Participants had non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems (not psychosis) and were doing < 30 hours of structured activity per week at the start of the study. All participants had enhanced standard care. This involved standard NHS treatment plus a full assessment and feedback from the study team, and a best practice guide to local support services that encouraged the best provision of standard evidence-based interventions. Half of the participants were randomly allocated to have social recovery therapy in addition to enhanced standard care over 9 months. All participants were invited to assessments 9, 15 and 24 months later. Therapists recorded the tasks and activities undertaken with participants. We asked both participants and therapists what they thought of the trial and the social recovery therapy. We found no evidence that adding social recovery therapy improved outcomes. Participants in both arms made large and clinically worthwhile improvements in structured activity and mental health outcomes. If anything, there was some evidence that people allocated to enhanced standard care improved more than those allocated to social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care. The differences were small, however, and could have occurred by chance.

The Early Youth Engagement in first episode psychosis (EYE-2) study: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a team-based motivational engagement intervention to improve engagement.

BACKGROUND: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services improve health outcomes for young people with psychosis in the medium-long term, but 25% of young people disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health, families, society and the NHS. This study will evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of a team-based motivational Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention. METHOD: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation, comparing the EYE-2 intervention + standardised EIP service to standardised EIP service alone, with randomisation at the team level. A process evaluation will evaluate the delivery of the intervention qualitatively and quantitatively across contexts. The setting is 20 EIP teams in 5 sites: Manchester, South London, East Anglia, Thames Valley and Hampshire. Participants are young people (14-35 years) with first episode psychosis, and EIP staff. The intervention is the team-based motivational engagement (EYE-2) intervention, delivered alongside standardised EIP services, and supported by additional training, website, booklets and social groups. The comparator is the standardised EIP service. Both interventions are delivered by EIP clinicians. The primary outcome is time to disengagement (time in days from date of allocation to care coordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with EIP service, or lack of response to EIP contact for a consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes include mental and physical health, deaths, social and occupational function, recovery, satisfaction and service use at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A 12-month within-trial economic evaluation will investigate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective and from an NHS perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide the first test of an engagement intervention in standardised care, with the potential for significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of young people and their families, and economic benefits for services. The intervention will be highly scalable, supported by the toolkit including manuals, commissioning guide, training and resources, adapted to meet the needs of the diverse EIP population, and based on an in-depth process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 51629746 prospectively registered 7th May 2019. Date assigned 10th May 2019.

Combined individual and family therapy in comparison to treatment as usual for people at-risk of psychosis: A feasibility study (IF CBT): Trial rationale, methodology and baseline characteristics.

AIMS: Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for psychosis recommend psychological therapy with or without family intervention for individuals at-risk of developing psychosis. NICE guidelines have a specific research recommendation to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of combined individual and family intervention. We report the rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a feasibility study which aimed to investigate combined Individual and Family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (IFCBT) for those at-risk of developing psychosis. METHODS: The IFCBT study was a single blind, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare a combined individual and family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) intervention to treatment as usual. Participants were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of the At-risk Mental State (CAARMS) and randomly allocated to either therapy or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). All participants were followed up at 6 and 12 months. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention of participants. Secondary outcomes included transition to psychosis and assessment of mood, anxiety and the relationship of the individual and nominated family member. RESULTS: We report data showing entry into the study from initial enquiry to randomization. We report the characteristics of the recruited sample of individuals (n = 70) and family members (n = 70) at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The study recruited to 92% of target demonstrating it is feasible to identify and recruit participants. Our study aimed to add to the current evidence base regarding the utility of family interventions for people at-risk of psychosis.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled effectiveness and economic studies.

OBJECTIVE: Many people with psychotic experiences do not develop psychotic disorders, yet those who seek help demonstrate high clinical complexity and poor outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences. METHOD: We searched 13 databases for studies of psychological interventions for adults with psychotic experiences, but not psychotic disorders. Our outcomes were the proportion of participants remitting from psychotic experiences (primary); changes in positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning, distress, and quality of life; and economic outcomes (secondary). We analysed results using multilevel random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 reports met inclusion criteria. In general, there was no strong evidence for the superiority of any one intervention. Five studies reported on our primary outcome, though only two reports provided randomised controlled trial evidence that psychological intervention (specifically, cognitive behavioural therapy) promoted remission from psychotic experiences. For secondary outcomes, we could only meta-analyse trials of cognitive behavioural therapy. We found that cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective than treatment as usual for reducing distress (pooled standardised mean difference: -0.24; 95% confidence interval = [-0.37, -0.10]), but no more effective than the control treatment for improving any other outcome. Individual reports indicated that cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, sleep cognitive behavioural therapy, systemic therapy, cognitive remediation therapy, and supportive treatments improved at least one clinical or functional outcome. Four reports included economic evaluations, which suggested cognitive behavioural therapy may be cost-effective compared with treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analytic findings were primarily null, with the exception that cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce the distress associated with psychotic experiences. Our analyses were limited by scarcity of studies, small samples and variable study quality. Several intervention frameworks showed preliminary evidence of positive outcomes; however, the paucity of consistent evidence for clinical and functional improvement highlights a need for further research into psychological treatments for psychotic experiences. PROSPERO PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016033869.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many people who have common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These experiences are associated with higher clinical complexity, poor treatment response, and negative clinical outcomes. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for people with psychotic experiences. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to reduce psychotic experiences and their associated distress and (2) identify key components of effective interventions. METHODS: Our search strategy will combine terms for (1) psychological interventions, (2) psychotic experiences, and (3) symptoms associated with psychotic experiences. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, all Cochrane databases, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and EconLit. Our primary outcome is the proportion of people who recovered or remitted from psychotic experiences after the intervention. Our secondary outcomes are changes in positive psychotic symptoms, negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning (including social, occupational, and academic), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two independent reviewers will judge each study against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and will extract study characteristics, outcome data, and intervention components. Risk of bias and methodological quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Drummond Checklist. Results will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: The identification of effective psychological interventions and of specific components associated with intervention effectiveness will augment existing evidence that can inform the development of a new, tailored intervention to improve outcomes related to psychotic symptoms, anxiety and depression, distress, functioning, and quality of life. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033869.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome. DESIGN: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs. RESULTS: Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (-2.40 points, 95% CI -4.79 to -0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI -£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Structured lifestyle education for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first-episode psychosis (STEPWISE): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major challenge for people with schizophrenia.AimsWe assessed whether STEPWISE, a theory-based, group structured lifestyle education programme could support weight reduction in people with schizophrenia. METHOD: In this randomised controlled trial (study registration: ISRCTN19447796), we recruited adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or first-episode psychosis from ten mental health organisations in England. Participants were randomly allocated to the STEPWISE intervention or treatment as usual. The 12-month intervention comprised four 2.5 h weekly group sessions, followed by 2-weekly maintenance contact and group sessions at 4, 7 and 10 months. The primary outcome was weight change after 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included diet, physical activity, biomedical measures and patient-related outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a mixed-methods process evaluation was included. RESULTS: Between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016, we recruited 414 people (intervention 208, usual care 206) with 341 (84.4%) participants completing the trial. At 12 months, weight reduction did not differ between groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI -1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.963); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. STEPWISE was well-received by participants and facilitators. The healthcare perspective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £246 921 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were successfully recruited and retained, indicating a strong interest in weight interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically nor cost-effective. Further research is needed to determine how to manage overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia.Declaration of interestR.I.G.H. received fees for lecturing, consultancy work and attendance at conferences from the following: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, Sunovion, Takeda, MSD. M.J.D. reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Servier, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc.; and, grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen. K.K. has received fees for consultancy and speaker for Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Servier and Merck Sharp & Dohme. He has received grants in support of investigator and investigator-initiated trials from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Sharp & Dohme. K.K. has received funds for research, honoraria for speaking at meetings and has served on advisory boards for Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novo Nordisk. D.Sh. is expert advisor to the NICE Centre for guidelines; board member of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH); clinical advisor (paid consultancy basis) to National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP); views are personal and not those of NICE, NCCMH or NCAP. J.P. received personal fees for involvement in the study from a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant. M.E.C. and Y.D. report grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study; and The Leicester Diabetes Centre, an organisation (employer) jointly hosted by an NHS Hospital Trust and the University of Leicester and who is holder (through the University of Leicester) of the copyright of the STEPWISE programme and of the DESMOND suite of programmes, training and intervention fidelity framework that were used in this study. S.R. has received honorarium from Lundbeck for lecturing. F.G. reports personal fees from Otsuka and Lundbeck, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, outside the submitted work; and has a family member with professional links to Lilly and GSK, including shares. F.G. is in part funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care Funding scheme, by the Maudsley Charity and by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and is supported by the by the Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

Structured lifestyle education to support weight loss for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis: the STEPWISE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is twice as common in people with schizophrenia as in the general population. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends that people with psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those taking antipsychotics, be offered a healthy eating and physical activity programme by their mental health care provider. There is insufficient evidence to inform how these lifestyle services should be commissioned. OBJECTIVES: To develop a lifestyle intervention for people with first episode psychosis or schizophrenia and to evaluate its clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, delivery and acceptability. DESIGN: A two-arm, analyst-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using web-based randomisation; a mixed-methods process evaluation, including qualitative case study methods and logic modelling; and a cost-utility analysis. SETTING: Ten community mental health trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: People with first episode psychosis, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group: (1) four 2.5-hour group-based structured lifestyle self-management education sessions, 1 week apart; (2) multimodal fortnightly support contacts; (3) three 2.5-hour group booster sessions at 3-monthly intervals, post core sessions. Control group: usual care assessed through a longitudinal survey. All participants received standard written lifestyle information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in weight (kg) at 12 months post randomisation. The key secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 12 months included self-reported nutrition (measured with the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire), objectively measured physical activity measured by accelerometry [GENEActiv (Activinsights, Kimbolton, UK)], biomedical measures, adverse events, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 414 participants (intervention arm: 208 participants; usual care: 206 participants) between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016. A total of 341 participants (81.6%) completed the trial. A total of 412 participants were analysed. After 12 months, weight change did not differ between the groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% confidence interval -1.59 to 1.67 kg; p = 0.964); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. Glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and lipid profile were unchanged by the intervention. Quality of life, psychiatric symptoms and illness perception did not change during the trial. There were three deaths, but none was related to the intervention. Most adverse events were expected and related to the psychiatric illness. The process evaluation showed that the intervention was acceptable, with participants valuing the opportunity to interact with others facing similar challenges. Session feedback indicated that 87.2% of participants agreed that the sessions had met their needs. Some indicated the desire for more ongoing support. Professionals felt that the intervention was under-resourced and questioned the long-term sustainability within current NHS settings. Professionals would have preferred greater access to participants' behaviour data to tailor the intervention better. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the health-care perspective is £246,921 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the societal perspective is £367,543 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of undertaking clinical research in this population, the trial successfully recruited and retained participants, indicating a high level of interest in weight management interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Further research will be required to define how overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia should be managed. The trial results suggest that lifestyle programmes for people with schizophrenia may need greater resourcing than for other populations, and interventions that have been shown to be effective in other populations, such as people with diabetes mellitus, are not necessarily effective in people with schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19447796. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30-40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference -0·89, 95% CI -3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference -2·40, -4·79 to -0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

Assessment of metacognitive beliefs in an at risk mental state for psychosis: A validation study of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30.

AIM: The Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) has been used to assess metacognitive beliefs in a range of mental health problems. The aim of this study is to assess the validity of the MCQ-30 in people at risk for psychosis. METHODS: One hundred eighty-five participants meeting criteria for an at risk mental state completed the MCQ-30 as part of their involvement in a randomized controlled trial. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were conducted to assess factor structure and construct validity. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the original five-factor structure of the MCQ-30. Examination of principal component analysis and parallel analysis outputs also suggested a five-factor structure. Correlation analyses including measures of depression, social anxiety, and beliefs about paranoia showed evidence of convergent validity. Discriminant validity was supported using the normalizing subscale of the beliefs about paranoia tool. CONCLUSIONS: The MCQ-30 demonstrated good fit using the original five-factor model, acceptable to very good internal consistency of items was evident and clinical usefulness in those at risk for psychosis was demonstrated.

Prevention and treatment of long-term social disability amongst young people with emerging severe mental illness with social recovery therapy (The PRODIGY Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people who have social disability associated with severe and complex mental health problems are an important group in need of early intervention. Their problems often date back to childhood and become chronic at an early age. Without intervention, the long-term prognosis is often poor and the economic costs very large. There is a major gap in the provision of evidence-based interventions for this group, and therefore new approaches to detection and intervention are needed. This trial provides a definitive evaluation of a new approach to early intervention with young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems using social recovery therapy (SRT) over a period of 9 months to improve mental health and social recovery outcomes. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, single blind, superiority randomised controlled trial. It is conducted in three sites in the UK: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants are aged 16 to 25 and have both persistent and severe social disability (defined as engaged in less than 30 hours per week of structured activity) and severe and complex mental health problems. The target sample size is 270 participants, providing 135 participants in each trial arm. Participants are randomised 1:1 using a web-based randomisation system and allocated to either SRT plus optimised treatment as usual (enhanced standard care) or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome is time use, namely hours spent in structured activity per week at 15 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes assess typical mental health problems of the group, including subthreshold psychotic symptoms, negative symptoms, depression and anxiety. Time use, secondary outcomes and health economic measures are assessed at 9, 15 and 24 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: This definitive trial will be the first to evaluate a novel psychological treatment for social disability and mental health problems in young people presenting with social disability and severe and complex non-psychotic mental health problems. The results will have important implications for policy and practice in the detection and early intervention for this group in mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47998710 (registered 29/11/2012).

Development of Low-Cost Instrumentation for Single Point Autofluorescence Lifetime Measurements.

Autofluorescence lifetime measurements, which can provide label-free readouts in biological tissues, contrasting e.g. different types and states of tissue matrix components and different cellular metabolites, may have significant clinical potential for diagnosis and to provide surgical guidance. However, the cost of the instrumentation typically used currently presents a barrier to wider implementation. We describe a low-cost single point time-resolved autofluorescence instrument, exploiting modulated laser diodes for excitation and FPGA-based circuitry for detection, together with a custom constant fraction discriminator. Its temporal accuracy is compared against a "gold-standard" instrument incorporating commercial TCSPC circuitry by resolving the fluorescence decays of reference fluorophores presenting single and double exponential decay profiles. To illustrate the potential to read out intrinsic contrast in tissue, we present preliminary measurements of autofluorescence lifetime measurements of biological tissues ex vivo. We believe that the lower cost of this instrument could enhance the potential of autofluorescence lifetime metrology for clinical deployment and commercial development.

easySTORM: a robust, lower-cost approach to localisation and TIRF microscopy.

TIRF and STORM microscopy are super-resolving fluorescence imaging modalities for which current implementations on standard microscopes can present significant complexity and cost. We present a straightforward and low-cost approach to implement STORM and TIRF taking advantage of multimode optical fibres and multimode diode lasers to provide the required excitation light. Combined with open source software and relatively simple protocols to prepare samples for STORM, including the use of Vectashield for non-TIRF imaging, this approach enables TIRF and STORM imaging of cells labelled with appropriate dyes or expressing suitable fluorescent proteins to become widely accessible at low cost.

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For around a third of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the condition proves to respond poorly to treatment with many typical and atypical antipsychotics. This is commonly referred to as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic with convincing efficacy for people whose symptoms are considered treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication. However, 30-40 % of such conditions will have an insufficient response to the drug. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia when delivered in combination with antipsychotic medication, with several meta-analyses showing robust support for this approach. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis whose symptoms are treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication is limited. There is a clinical and economic need to evaluate treatments to improve outcomes for people with such conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: A parallel group, prospective randomised, open, blinded evaluation of outcomes design will be used to compare a standardised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention added to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone (the comparator group) for individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for whom an adequate trial of clozapine has either not been possible due to tolerability problems or was not associated with a sufficient therapeutic response. The trial will be conducted across five sites in the United Kingdom. DISCUSSION: The recruitment target of 485 was achieved, with a final recruitment total of 487. This trial is the largest definitive, pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia whose symptoms have failed to show an adequate response to clozapine treatment. Using a prognostic risk model, baseline information will be used to explore whether there are identifiable subgroups for which the treatment effect is greatest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552 . Registered 29(th) November 2012.