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.

Randomised controlled trial of the Community Navigator programme to reduce loneliness and depression for adults with treatment-resistant depression in secondary community mental health services: trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed for people with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), who do not benefit from anti-depressants and many of whom do not recover fully with psychological treatments. The Community Navigator programme was co-produced with service users and practitioners. It is a novel social intervention which aims to reduce loneliness and thus improve health outcomes for people with TRD. Participants receive up to 10 individual meetings with a Community Navigator, who helps them to map their social world and set and enact goals to enhance their social connections and reduce loneliness. Participants may also access group meet-ups with others in the programme every 2 months, and may be offered modest financial support to enable activities to support social connections. METHODS: A researcher-blind, multi-site, 1:1 randomised controlled trial with N = 306 participants will test the effectiveness of the Community Navigator programme for people with TRD in secondary community mental health teams (CMHTs). Our primary hypothesis is that people who are offered the Community Navigator programme as an addition to usual CMHT care will be less depressed, assessed using the PHQ-9 self-report measure, at 8-month, end-of-treatment follow-up, compared to a control group receiving usual CMHT care and a booklet with information about local social groups and activities. We will follow participants up at end-of-treatment and at 14 months, 6 months after end-of-treatment follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the following: loneliness, anxiety, personal recovery, self-efficacy, social network, social identities. We will collect data about health-related quality of life and service use to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the Community Navigator programme. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Community Navigator programme and whether it can be recommended for use in practice. The trial is due to finish in August 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 8th July 2022 at: ISRCTN13205972.

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups: an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study.

BACKGROUND: Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. METHODS: Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist-constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. FINDINGS: Each study site identified 2-3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Working with people with lived experience in leadership roles, and collaborations between NHS and community organisations will be essential. Future research avenues include comparison of the benefits of culturally specific versus generic therapeutic interventions.

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.

The Community Navigator Study: Results from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a programme to reduce loneliness for people with complex anxiety or depression.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is common among people with mental health problems and predicts poorer recovery from depression and anxiety. Needs for support with loneliness and social relationships are often under-addressed in mental health services. The Community Navigator programme was designed to reduce loneliness for adults (aged 18 and above) with complex depression or anxiety who were using secondary mental health services. Acceptability and feasibility of the programme and a trial evaluation were tested in a feasibility randomised controlled trial with qualitative evaluation. METHODS: Forty participants with depression or anxiety using secondary mental health services were recruited from mental health services in two London sites and randomised to receive: the Community Navigator programme over six months in addition to routine care (n = 30); or routine care (n = 10). Measures of loneliness, depression, other clinical and social outcomes and service use were collected at baseline and six-months follow-up. Levels of engagement in the programme and rates of trial recruitment and retention were assessed. Programme delivery was assessed through session logs completed by Community Navigators. The acceptability of the programme was explored through qualitative interviews (n = 32) with intervention group participants, their family and friends, programme providers and other involved staff. RESULTS: Forty participants were recruited in four months from 65 eligible potential participants asked. No one withdrew from the trial. Follow-up interviews were completed with 35 participants (88%). Process records indicated the programme was delivered as intended: there was a median of seven meetings with their Community Navigator (of a maximum ten) per treatment group participant. Qualitative interviews indicated good acceptability of the programme to stakeholders, and potential utility in reducing loneliness and depression and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive, multi-site randomised controlled trial is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Community Navigator programme for people with complex anxiety and depression in secondary mental health services.

Development of a peer-led, network mapping intervention to improve the health of individuals with severe mental illnesses: protocol for a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy and many have comorbid physical health conditions. Primary care providers are experiencing increased demands for care for people with SMI. Barriers to accessing physical healthcare have been identified which negatively affect quality of care. We propose that peer support workers (PSWs) could deliver an intervention to service users to promote their physical health by drawing on existing social support. The aim of this research was to pilot a novel PSW-led intervention, including personal well-being network mapping, to improve access to primary care for physical health needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-four participants will be recruited from community-based mental health teams in two boroughs of London. Each participant will be offered a six-session intervention. Quantitative data will be collected before and after intervention (at 4-month follow-up). Qualitative interviews will be conducted with PSWs after completion of the intervention and with participants at a 4-month follow-up. Some intervention sessions will be observed by a member of the research team. This is a pilot study with a small sample aiming to assess acceptability and feasibility of an intervention. We aim to use the results to refine the existing theory of change and to optimise the intervention and its evaluation in a future randomised controlled trial. This study is strengthened by its potential clinical importance and origin in previous research where service users engaged with well-being network mapping. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the London-Chelsea Regional Ethics Committee (ref: 17/LO/0585). The findings will be disseminated to participants, the National Health Service trusts that we recruited from, primary care mental health leads, commissioners and in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intervention for reducing cholesterol and cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illness in English primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses, including psychosis, have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a primary care intervention on decreasing total cholesterol concentrations and cardiovascular disease risk in people with severe mental illnesses. METHODS: We did this cluster randomised trial in general practices across England, with general practices as the cluster unit. We randomly assigned general practices (1:1) with 40 or more patients with severe mental illnesses using a computer-generated random sequence with a block size of four. Researchers were masked to allocation, but patients and general practice staff were not. We included participants aged 30-75 years with severe mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or psychosis), who had raised cholesterol concentrations (5·0 mmol/L) or a total:HDL cholesterol ratio of 4·0 mmol/L or more and one or more modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors. Eligible participants were recruited within each practice before randomisation. The Primrose intervention consisted of appointments (≤12) with a trained primary care professional involving manualised interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention (ie, adhering to statins, improving diet or physical activity levels, reducing alcohol, or quitting smoking). Treatment as usual involved feedback of screening results only. The primary outcome was total cholesterol at 12 months and the primary economic analysis outcome was health-care costs. We used intention-to-treat analysis. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN13762819. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2013, and Sept 30, 2015, we recruited general practices and between May 9, 2014, and Feb 10, 2016, we recruited participants and randomly assigned 76 general practices with 327 participants to the Primrose intervention (n=38 with 155 patients) or treatment as usual (n=38 with 172 patients). Total cholesterol concentration data were available at 12 months for 137 (88%) participants in the Primrose intervention group and 152 (88%) participants in the treatment-as-usual group. The mean total cholesterol concentration did not differ at 12 months between the two groups (5·4 mmol/L [SD 1·1] for Primrose vs 5·5 mmol/L [1·1] for treatment as usual; mean difference estimate 0·03, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·29; p=0·788). This result was unchanged by pre-agreed supportive analyses. Mean cholesterol decreased over 12 months (-0·22 mmol/L [1·1] for Primrose vs -0·36 mmol/L [1·1] for treatment as usual). Total health-care costs (£1286 [SE 178] in the Primrose intervention group vs £2182 [328] in the treatment-as-usual group; mean difference -£895, 95% CI -1631 to -160; p=0·012) and psychiatric inpatient costs (£157 [135] vs £956 [313]; -£799, -1480 to -117; p=0·018) were lower in the Primrose intervention group than the treatment-as-usual group. Six serious adverse events of hospital admission and one death occurred in the Primrose group (n=7) and 23, including three deaths, occurred in the treatment-as-usual group (n=18). INTERPRETATION: Total cholesterol concentration at 12 months did not differ between the Primrose and treatment-as-usual groups, possibly because of the cluster design, good care in the treatment-as-usual group, short duration of the intervention, or suboptimal focus on statin prescribing. The association between the Primrose intervention and fewer psychiatric admissions, with potential cost-effectiveness, might be important. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research.

The role of family carers in the use of personal budgets by people with mental health problems.

Personal budgets aim to increase choice and independence for people with social care needs but they remain underused by people with mental health problems compared to other disability groups. The use of personal budgets may impact on families in a variety of ways, both positive and negative. This paper draws on interviews, undertaken in 2012-2013 with 18 family carers and 12 mental health service users, that explored experiences of family involvement in accessing and managing personal budgets for a person with mental health-related social care needs. The sample was drawn from three sites across England, with additional carers being recruited via voluntary sector networks. Our findings show that for many people with severe mental health needs who lack motivation and confidence to negotiate access to personal budgets, carers may provide the necessary support to enable them to benefit from this form of social care support. We illustrate the role carers may play in initiating, pursuing and maximising the level of support available through personal budgets. However, some carers interviewed considered that personal budget funding was reduced because of practitioners' assumptions about carers' willingness and ability to provide support. We also report perceived tensions between family carers and practitioners around appropriate involvement in decision-making. The study findings have implications for local authorities, practitioners and family carers in supporting the involvement of family carers in support for people with severe mental health problems.

Evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention for lowering cardiovascular disease risk for people with severe mental illnesses in primary care (PRIMROSE study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses die up to 20 years earlier than the general population, with cardiovascular disease being the leading cause of death. National guidelines recommend that the physical care of people with severe mental illnesses should be the responsibility of primary care; however, little is known about effective interventions to lower cardiovascular disease risk in this population and setting. Following extensive peer review, funding was secured from the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to deliver the proposed study. The aim of the trial is to test the effectiveness of a behavioural intervention to lower cardiovascular disease risk in people with severe mental illnesses in United Kingdom General Practices. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a cluster randomised controlled trial in 70 GP practices for people with severe mental illnesses, aged 30 to 75 years old, with elevated cardiovascular disease risk factors. The trial will compare the effectiveness of a behavioural intervention designed to lower cardiovascular disease risk and delivered by a practice nurse or healthcare assistant, with standard care offered in General Practice. A total of 350 people will be recruited and followed up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is total cholesterol level at the 12-month follow-up and secondary outcomes include blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, smoking status, quality of life, adherence to treatments and services and behavioural measures for diet, physical activity and alcohol use. An economic evaluation will be carried out to determine the cost effectiveness of the intervention compared with standard care. DISCUSSION: The results of this pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention on lowering total cholesterol and addressing multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors in people with severe mental illnesses in GP Practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13762819. Date of Registration: 25 February 2013. Date and Version Number: 27 August 2014 Version 5.

Outcomes from personal budgets in mental health: service users' experiences in three English local authorities.

BACKGROUND: In England, personal budgets are offered to eligible people with severe mental health problems to enable them to purchase what is helpful for their quality of life or recovery. However, in-depth insight into people's own perceptions of the outcomes is lacking. AIMS: To investigate people's own reporting of outcomes from using personal budgets in relation to social care needs arising from severe mental health problems. METHOD: A convenience sample of 47 individuals receiving personal budgets was recruited from three English local authorities. In-depth semi-structured interviews were subject to thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Most participants identified positive outcomes across domains interconnected through individual life circumstances, with mental health and wellbeing, social participation and relationships, and confidence and skills most commonly reported. Some needed more support than others to identify goals and make use of the personal budget to take a more active part in the society. CONCLUSIONS: Personal budgets can enable people to achieve outcomes that are relevant to them in the context of their lives, particularly through enhancing their wellbeing and social participation. Consideration should be given to distinguishing those individuals potentially requiring more support for engagement from those who can engage more independently to identify and pursue their goals.

Implementing personalisation in integrated mental health teams in England.

This article explores how role boundaries and professional priorities in integrated mental health teams have impacted on the implementation of personalised approaches to social care support. We focus on the use of personal budgets to meet mental health-related social care needs as a key mechanism for personalised care. Drawing on 28 qualitative interviews with mental health practitioners from three local authorities in England undertaken in 2013, we report nurses', social workers', and occupational therapists' attitudes towards, and engagement with, personal budgets. Professional boundaries and competing priorities heavily influenced the extent to which personal budgets were perceived as a legitimate part of their roles. Across different professional groups, a sense emerged that personal budgets should be somebody else's job. A focus on attention to treatment, stability, and risk management often resulted in low prioritisation of personal budgets and led practitioners to avoid recommending them or to exclude service users from the process as a way to save time. Implications of the dominant medical model and the protection of traditional professional roles for the implementation of new, person-centred models of practice are discussed.

Implementing personalisation for people with mental health problems: a comparative case study of four local authorities in England.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing choice and control for people using services is a mental health and social-care service priority in England. Personalisation is a new policy and practice for delivery of social-care services where eligible adults are allocated a personal budget to spend to meet their agreed support needs. AIMS: To describe approaches to introducing personal budgets to people with severe and enduring mental health needs, and to identify facilitators or barriers encountered. METHOD: Within four English local authority (LA) areas, purposively selected to provide maximum variation, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 58 participants from LAs, NHS trusts and third-sector organisations. An Interpretive Framework analysis considered within- and across-site insights. RESULTS: Issues arising from the implementation of personalisation for people with mental health needs are presented under two general themes: "responsibility and power" and "vision and leadership". Key challenges identified were complexities of working across NHS and LAs, the importance of effective leadership and engagement with service user representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing personal budgets in mental health requires effective engagement of health and social-care systems. Change processes need strong leadership, clear vision and personal commitment, with ownership by all key stakeholders, including front-line practitioners.

Social exclusion and mental health: conceptual and methodological review.

BACKGROUND: The concept of social exclusion is now widely used in discussions about the nature of disadvantage, and there are ongoing initiatives to promote social inclusion among those with mental health problems. AIMS: To conduct a conceptual and methodological review of social exclusion, focusing initially on the origins and definitions of the concept and then on approaches to its measurement, both in general and in relation to mental health. METHOD: We used two main strategies. First, we utilised expertise within the study team to identify major texts and reviews on social exclusion and related topics. Second, we searched major bibliographic databases for literature on social exclusion and mental health. We adopted a non-quantitative approach to synthesising the findings. RESULTS: There is no single accepted definition of social exclusion. However, most emphasise lack of participation in social activities as the core characteristic. There are a number of approaches to measuring social exclusion, including use of indicator lists and dimensions. In the mental health literature, social exclusion is poorly defined and measured. CONCLUSIONS: If social exclusion is a useful concept for understanding the social experiences of those with mental health problems, there is an urgent need for more conceptual and methodological work.

Carers and confidentiality in mental health care: considering the role of the carer's assessment: a study of service users', carers' and practitioners' views.

Relatives or carers of people with mental health problems have criticised professionals for their failures to share information with them. This article reports on a multiple method study comprising a policy search, a survey of service users, carers and professionals, and stakeholder interviews and group events. The study found few policies that addressed the principles underpinning information sharing with carers. However, examples of good practice in professional involvement of carers that took account of carer rights and responsibilities emerged from the research. This suggests the relevance of the carer's assessment, a carer's right to an assessment of his or her circumstances and wishes in assisting understanding of the care context and enhancing appropriate information sharing between professionals and carers.