Evaluating the implementation and impact of a new model of care for integrating children and young people's acute mental healthcare in a paediatric setting: a protocol for a realist, mixed-methods approach.

INTRODUCTION: The mental health of children and young people in the UK has been declining and has continued to worsen throughout the pandemic, leading to an increase in mental health-related emergencies. In response, the Best for You programme was developed as a new service designed to integrate mental healthcare for children and young people between acute hospital and community services. The programme is comprised of four new services: a rapid assessment young people's centre with dual-trained staff, a co-located day service offering family-based care,a digital hub, designed to integrate with the fourth element of the model, namely community support and mental health services. This evaluation protocol aims to assess the development, implementation and outcomes of the Best for You programme and develops a scalable model that could be implemented in other parts of the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods realist evaluation aims to delineate the components of the system to assess their interdependent relationships within a wider context. Data collection will include interviews, participant observations, focus groups and the collection of local quantitative healthcare data. The research will be conducted across four phases. Phase 1-captures the development of the underlying programme theory. Phase 2-a process evaluation testing the programme theory. Phase 3- an outcome and economic evaluation. Phase 4-consolidation of learning from phases 1-3 to identify barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that have shaped implementation drawing on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the evaluation was received from the NHS local ethics committee. Embedded within the evaluation is a formative review to feedback and share learning with stakeholders to scale-up the programme. Findings from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations to be useful to service user organisations and networks.

Ethnic inequalities in the incidence of diagnosis of severe mental illness in England: a systematic review and new meta-analyses for non-affective and affective psychoses.

PURPOSE: Although excess risks particularly for a diagnosis of schizophrenia have been identified for ethnic minority people in England and other contexts, we sought to identify and synthesise up-to-date evidence (2018) for affective in addition to non-affective psychoses by specific ethnic groups in England. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in diagnosed incidence of psychoses in England, searching nine databases for reviews (citing relevant studies up to 2009) and an updated search in three databases for studies between 2010 and 2018. Studies from both searches were combined in meta-analyses allowing coverage of more specific ethnic groups than previously. RESULTS: We included 28 primary studies. Relative to the majority population, significantly higher risks of diagnosed schizophrenia were found in Black African (Relative risk, RR 5.72, 95% CI 3.87-8.46, n = 9); Black Caribbean (RR 5.20, 95% CI 4.33-6.24, n = 21); South Asian (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, n = 14); White Other (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.59-3.14, n = 9); and Mixed Ethnicity people (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.32-3.80, n = 4). Significantly higher risks for diagnosed affective psychoses were also revealed: Black African (RR 4.07, 95% CI 2.27-7.28, n = 5); Black Caribbean (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.78-4.74, n = 16); South Asian (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, n = 8); White Other (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32-1.83, n = 5); Mixed Ethnicity (RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.99-9.52, n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for a diagnosis of non-affective and affective psychoses is particularly elevated for Black ethnic groups, but is higher for all ethnic minority groups including those previously not assessed through meta-analyses (White Other, Mixed Ethnicity). This calls for further research on broader disadvantages affecting ethnic minority people.

Ethnic inequalities and pathways to care in psychosis in England: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As part of a national programme to tackle ethnic inequalities, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on ethnic inequalities in pathways to care for adults with psychosis living in England and/or Wales. METHODS: Nine databases were searched from inception to 03.07.17 for previous systematic reviews, including forward and backward citation tracking and a PROSPERO search to identify ongoing reviews. We then carried forward relevant primary studies from included reviews (with the latest meta-analyses reporting on research up to 2012), supplemented by a search on 18.10.17 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for primary studies between 2012 and 2017 that had not been covered by previous meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty studies, all conducted in England, were included for our updated meta-analyses on pathways to care. Relative to the White reference group, elevated rates of civil detentions were found for Black Caribbean (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.68 to 4.40, n = 18), Black African (OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 2.40 to 4.02, n = 6), and South Asian patients (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12, n = 10). Analyses of each Mental Health Act section revealed significantly higher rates for Black people under (civil) Section 2 (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.11, n = 3). Rates in repeat admissions were significantly higher than in first admission for South Asian patients (between-group difference p < 0.01). Some ethnic groups had more police contact (Black African OR = 3.60, 95% CI = 2.15 to 6.05, n = 2; Black Caribbean OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.88 to 3.72, n = 8) and criminal justice system involvement (Black Caribbean OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.02 to 3.78, n = 5; Black African OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.32 to 2.78, n = 3). The White Other patients also showed greater police and criminal justice system involvement than White British patients (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.15, n = 4). General practitioner involvement was less likely for Black than the White reference group. No significant variations over time were found across all the main outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our updated meta-analyses reveal persisting but not significantly worsening patterns of ethnic inequalities in pathways to psychiatric care, particularly affecting Black groups. This provides a comprehensive evidence base from which to inform policy and practice amidst a prospective Mental Health Act reform. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017071663.