Diversity, equity, and inclusivity in observational ambulatory assessment: Recommendations from two decades of Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) research.

Ambient audio sampling methods such as the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) have become increasingly prominent in clinical and social sciences research. These methods record snippets of naturalistically assessed audio from participants' daily lives, enabling novel observational research about the daily social interactions, identities, environments, behaviors, and speech of populations of interest. In practice, these scientific opportunities are equaled by methodological challenges: researchers' own cultural backgrounds and identities can easily and unknowingly permeate the collection, coding, analysis, and interpretation of social data from daily life. Ambient audio sampling poses unique and significant challenges to cultural humility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) in scientific research that require systematized attention. Motivated by this observation, an international consortium of 21 researchers who have used ambient audio sampling methodologies created a workgroup with the aim of improving upon existing published guidelines. We pooled formally and informally documented challenges pertaining to DEI in ambient audio sampling from our collective experience on 40+ studies (most of which used the EAR app) in clinical and healthy populations ranging from children to older adults. This article presents our resultant recommendations and argues for the incorporation of community-engaged research methods in observational ambulatory assessment designs looking forward. We provide concrete recommendations across each stage typical of an ambient audio sampling study (recruiting and enrolling participants, developing coding systems, training coders, handling multi-linguistic participants, data analysis and interpretation, and dissemination of results) as well as guiding questions that can be used to adapt these recommendations to project-specific constraints and needs.

The Early Psychosis Intervention Center (EPICENTER): development and six-month outcomes of an American first-episode psychosis clinical service.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that specialized clinical services targeted toward individuals early in the course of a psychotic illness may be effective in reducing both the clinical and economic burden associated with these illnesses. Unfortunately, the United States has lagged behind other countries in the delivery of specialized, multi-component care to individuals early in the course of a psychotic illness. A key factor contributing to this lag is the limited available data demonstrating the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of early intervention for psychosis among individuals served by the American mental health system. Thus, the goal of this study is to present clinical and cost outcome data with regard to a first-episode psychosis treatment center within the American mental health system: the Early Psychosis Intervention Center (EPICENTER). METHODS: Sixty-eight consecutively enrolled individuals with first-episode psychosis completed assessments of symptomatology, social functioning, educational/vocational functioning, cognitive functioning, substance use, and service utilization upon enrollment in EPICENTER and after 6 months of EPICENTER care. All participants were provided with access to a multi-component treatment package comprised of cognitive behavioral therapy, family psychoeducation, and metacognitive remediation. RESULTS: Over the first 6 months of EPICENTER care, participants experienced improvements in symptomatology, social functioning, educational/vocational functioning, cognitive functioning, and substance abuse. The average cost of care during the first 6 months of EPICENTER participation was lower than the average cost during the 6-months prior to joining EPICENTER. These savings occurred despite the additional costs associated with the receipt of EPICENTER care and were driven primarily by reductions in the utilization of inpatient psychiatric services and contacts with the legal system. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that multi-component interventions for first-episode psychosis provided in the US mental health system may be both clinically-beneficial and cost-effective. Although additional research is needed, these findings provide preliminary support for the growing delivery of specialized multi-component interventions for first-episode psychosis within the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01570972; Date of Trial Registration: November 7, 2011.