Patient and befriender experiences of participating in a befriending programme for adults with psychosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Befriending is a popular form of volunteering in healthcare, and research suggests that it can be beneficial for people with mental illness. This study aimed to explore the experiences of a large sample of volunteer befrienders and patients who participated in the VOLUME trial, testing the efficacy of a structured befriending programme for individuals with psychosis. This is the first study to explore the specific challenges and benefits of befriending in both volunteers and patients in this population within the same programme. METHODS: A series of in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 volunteer befrienders and 28 participating patients. All participants who had taken part in at least one befriending session were invited to be interviewed about their experiences with the aim of including a wide range of views, including those who were more or less engaged with the befriending programme. The data were analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Four broad themes were developed from the analysis of the befriender and patient interviews which, although were largely discrete, captured the overall experiences of participating in the befriending programme: 1) Bridging the gap, 2) A genuine relationship that developed over time, 3) A big commitment, and 4) A flexible approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results further support that, befriending programmes for individuals with psychosis can be a worthwhile experience for both befrienders and patients. However, participation also requires perseverance and flexibility from both sides. Different factors, such as incorporating participant preferences for frequency of meetings, have to be considered in the development and management of a befriending programme in order to provide effective support to both befrienders and patients.

Understanding global mental health: a conceptual review.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are viewed as a global concern requiring globally led approaches to address them. Since the publication of the 2007 Lancet series on global mental health (GMH), the term has become widespread. Over the last two decades, GMH has become increasingly affiliated with policy reform, academic courses, funding bodies and research. However, it is not always obvious how those working in the field of GMH are using the term, resulting in a lack of clarity. Therefore, work is needed to synthesise the current understanding(s) of GMH to help characterise its meaning. AIM: To synthesise the literature and identify the different ways GMH is understood. METHOD: A conceptual review, using a systematic search and a content analysis, was conducted to develop a conceptual framework of the different conceptual understandings of GMH. RESULTS: We developed a conceptual framework of four understandings of GMH. These understandings of GMH are as follows: an area of research generating findings to establish a GMH evidence-base; implementation of research into practice; improving the mental health environment; learning from and supporting low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). CONCLUSION: Our review proposes a simple framework, clarifying the key characteristics of the GMH landscape. The findings highlight the diversity of usage of the term in the literature, as well as present the wide scope that comprises the field of GMH. Referring to this framework may help those engaged with GMH to be more specific with which aspect of the field they are concerned with.

Adapting a Mental Health Intervention for Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Web-Based Synchronous Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Although focus groups are a valuable qualitative research tool, face-to-face meetings may be difficult to arrange and time consuming. This challenge has been further compounded by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown and physical distancing measures implemented, which caused exceptional challenges to human activities. Online focus groups (OFGs) are an example of an alternative strategy and require further study. At present, OFGs have mostly been studied and used in high-income countries, with little information relating to their implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to share our experiences of conducting OFGs through a web conferencing service and provide recommendations for future research. METHODS: As part of a broader study, OFGs were developed with adults and adolescents in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a convenience sampling method, we invited eligible participants via email in two different cities of Colombia to participate in OFGs conducted via Microsoft Teams. Researcher notes and discussion were used to capture participant and facilitator experiences, as well as practical considerations. RESULTS: Technical issues were encountered, but various measures were taken to minimize them, such as using a web conferencing service that was familiar to participants, sending written instructions, and performing a trial meeting prior to the OFG. Adolescent participants, unlike their adult counterparts, were fluent in using web conferencing platforms and did not encounter technical challenges. CONCLUSIONS: OFGs have great potential in research settings, especially during the current and any future public health emergencies. It is important to keep in mind that even with the advantages that they offer, technical issues (ie, internet speed and access to technology) are major obstacles in LMICs. Further research is required and should carefully consider the appropriateness of OFGs in different settings.

A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Therapeutic Group Process Questionnaires.

The aims of this study were to systematically review the literature on questionnaire-based group process measures and assess the psychometric scale development properties of these measures. A systematic search of questionnaire-based measures of group process was conducted from four databases: PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE and AMED. A quality assessment was undertaken using established criteria. Only studies that described the development of questionnaire-based scales were included. Seventeen studies which described thirteen measures were included in the analysis. The developed list highlights a range of questionnaires that can be used by clinicians and researchers seeking to measure either "specific therapeutic group mechanisms" or "overall group experiences." Further research should focus on developing the content validity of these scales by involving the target population during item selection and reduction.

Giving Patients Choices During Involuntary Admission: A New Intervention.

Background: People who receive involuntary treatment are some of the most vulnerable in psychiatric services. They are more likely to have poorer social and clinical outcomes and to be disillusioned with and disengaged from care. Research indicates that patients' experience in the first week of involuntary treatment is a critical period: a better experience of care in the first week predicts better quality of life and reduced readmission 1 year later. Patients have identified involvement in clinical decisions as key to improving their experience of care. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention to facilitate involvement in decision making for involuntary inpatients called OPeNS (Options, Preferences, Negotiate, and Summarise). Methods: This was a mixed method study. The OPeNS intervention was developed based on previous research carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Clinicians were trained to deliver it to involuntary inpatients. Feasibility indices (rates of participation in the intervention and time required to deliver it) were collected. Patients (N = 14) and clinicians (N = 5) provided qualitative data on their experience of the intervention in semi-structured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The OPeNS intervention was found to be acceptable by both patients and clinicians and feasible to conduct within the first week of involuntary treatment. Patients' and clinicians' experiences of the intervention fall into two themes: 'Enabling a different dynamic' and 'Clashing with usual practices and priorities'. Conclusion: The OPeNS intervention provides a structure that can be used by clinicians across disciplines to facilitate involving involuntary patients in decision making. Although challenges related to changing usual practices were identified, the intervention was received positively and was feasible to conduct in the first week of involuntary treatment.

Interventions for involuntary psychiatric inpatients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Observational research has found that involuntary treatment provides limited benefits in terms of long-term clinical outcomes. Our aim was to review literature on existing interventions in order to identify helpful approaches to improve outcomes of involuntary treatment. METHODS: This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Seven databases (AMED, PsycINFO, Embase Classic, Embase 1974-2017, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and BNI) were searched and the results were analysed in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Nineteen papers describing fourteen different interventions were included. Using narrative synthesis the interventions were summarised into three categories: a) structured patient-centred care planning; b) specialist therapeutic interventions; c) systemic changes to hospital practice. The methodologies used and outcomes assessed were heterogeneous. Most studies were of low quality, although five interventions were tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Preliminary evidence supports structured patient-centred care planning interventions have an effect on long-term outcomes (such as readmission), and that specialist therapeutic interventions and systemic changes to hospital practice have an effect on reducing the use of coercive measures on wards. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that it is possible to conduct rigorous intervention-testing studies in involuntary patients, including RCTs. Yet, the overall evidence is limited. Structured patient-centred care planning interventions show promise for the improvement of long-term outcomes and should be further evaluated.