Associations between psychosis and visual acuity impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Several theories propose that visual acuity impairment is associated with psychosis. Visual impairment could lead to psychosis or the converse, or they may share underlying pathology or risk factors. In the first evidence synthesis in this area for over 25 years, we collated studies measuring the association between visual acuity impairment and psychosis. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases for studies published from 1992 to 2020, using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. We narratively synthesized findings and meta-analyzed sufficiently homogenous results. RESULTS: We included 40 papers, which reported on 31 studies. Evidence from seven cohort studies was inconsistent, which precluded meta-analysis of this study design. These contradictory results also made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding a temporal association. We found evidence for an association from eight cross-sectional studies treating visual acuity impairment as the exposure and psychosis as the outcome [pooled odds ratio (OR) =1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-2.31], and four with the reverse exposure and outcome (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.17-2.92). Seven case-control studies with mixed findings were found, but only two primarily addressed our research question, and these findings were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence supports a cross-sectional association between visual acuity impairment and psychosis, further research is needed to clarify the temporal direction, given the mixed findings in cohort studies. Understanding the association may give insights into prevention strategies for people at risk of visual acuity impairment and psychosis.

A qualitative study of stakeholder views on the use of a digital app for supported self-management in early intervention services for psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Digital tools such as Smartphones have the potential to increase access to mental health support including self-management interventions for individuals with psychosis, and ultimately to improve outcomes. Self-management strategies, including relapse prevention and crisis planning and setting personal recovery goals, are intended to assist people with long-term conditions to take an active role in their recovery, with evidence for a range of benefits. However, their implementation is inconsistent, and access and uptake need to be improved. The current study explores the acceptability of a Smartphone app (My Journey 3) that has been developed to facilitate supported self-management in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services. METHODS: Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with twenty-one EIP service users who had access to My Journey 3 as part of a feasibility trial, and with thirteen EIP service clinicians who were supporting service users with the app. Interviews focused on the acceptability and usability of My Journey 3. Data was coded to themes based on the Acceptability of Healthcare Interventions framework. RESULTS: Many service user participants found My Journey 3 to be acceptable. The symptom and medication trackers in particular were described as helpful. A smaller number of service users disliked the intervention. Individual-level factors that appeared to influence acceptability and engagement included recovery stage and symptom severity. Clinicians tended to report that My Journey 3 was a potentially positive addition to service users' care, but they often felt unable to provide support due to competing demands in their work, which in turn may have impacted acceptability and usage of the app. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the app is perceived as having potential to improve users' capacity to self-manage and work towards recovery goals, but barriers prevented many clinicians providing consistent and effective support as intended. Further evaluation of supported self-management apps in psychosis is warranted but needs to address implementation challenges from the start.

Smartphone-delivered self-management for first-episode psychosis: the ARIES feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a Smartphone-based self-management tool in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services. DESIGN: A two-arm unblinded feasibility RCT. SETTING: Six NHS EIP services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults using EIP services who own an Android Smartphone. Participants were recruited until the recruitment target was met (n=40). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised with a 1:1 allocation to one of two conditions: (1) treatment as usual from EIP services (TAU) or (2) TAU plus access to My Journey 3 on their own Smartphone. My Journey 3 features a range of self-management components including access to digital recovery and relapse prevention plans, medication tracking and symptom monitoring. My Journey 3 use was at the users' discretion and was supported by EIP service clinicians. Participants had access for a median of 38.1 weeks. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, follow-up rates and intervention engagement. Participant data on mental health outcomes were collected from clinical records and from research assessments at baseline, 4 months and 12 months. RESULTS: 83% and 75% of participants were retained in the trial at the 4-month and 12-month assessments. All treatment group participants had access to My Journey 3 during the trial, but technical difficulties caused delays in ensuring timely access to the intervention. The median number of My Journey 3 uses was 16.5 (IQR 8.5 to 23) and median total minutes spent using My Journey 3 was 26.8 (IQR 18.3 to 57.3). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and retention were feasible. Within a trial context, My Journey 3 could be successfully delivered to adults using EIP services, but with relatively low usage rates. Further evaluation of the intervention in a larger trial may be warranted, but should include attention to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10004994.

Assessing Digital Risk in Psychiatric Patients: Mixed Methods Study of Psychiatry Trainees' Experiences, Views, and Understanding.

BACKGROUND: The use of digital technology can help people access information and provide support for their mental health problems, but it can also expose them to risk, such as bullying or prosuicide websites. It may be important to consider internet-related risk behavior (digital risk) within a generic psychiatric risk assessment, but no studies have explored the practice or acceptability of this among psychiatrists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore psychiatry trainees' experiences, views, and understanding of digital risk in psychiatry. We predicted that clinician awareness would be highest among trainees who work in child and adolescent mental health services. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of psychiatry trainees attending a UK regional trainees' conference to investigate how they routinely assess patients' internet use and related risk of harm and their experience and confidence in assessing these risks. We conducted focus groups to further explore trainees' understandings and experiences of digital risk assessment. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to present the quantitative data. A thematic analysis was used to identify the key themes in the qualitative data set. RESULTS: The cross-sectional survey was completed by 113 out of 312 psychiatry trainees (response rate 36.2%), from a range of subspecialties and experience levels. Half of the trainees (57/113, 50.4%) reported treating patients exposed to digital risk, particularly trainees subspecializing in child and adolescent psychiatry (17/22, 77% vs 40/91, 44%;P=.02). However, 67.3% (76/113) reported not feeling competent to assess digital risk. Child and adolescent psychiatrists were more likely than others to ask patients routinely about specific digital risk domains, including reckless web-based behavior (18/20, 90% vs 54/82, 66%; P=.03), prosuicide websites (20/21, 95% vs 57/81, 70%; P=.01), and online sexual behavior (17/21, 81% vs 44/81, 54%; P=.02). Although 84.1% (95/113) of the participants reported using a proforma to record general risk assessment, only 5% (5/95) of these participants prompted an assessment of internet use. Only 9.7% (11/113) of the trainees had received digital risk training, and 73.5% (83/113) reported that they would value this. Our thematic analysis of transcripts from 3 focus groups (comprising 11 trainees) identified 2 main themes: barriers to assessment and management of digital risk, and the double-edged sword of web use. Barriers reported included the novelty and complexity of the internet, a lack of confidence and guidance in addressing internet use directly, and ongoing tension between assessment and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is common for psychiatrists to encounter patients subject to digital risk, trainee psychiatrists lack competence and confidence in their assessment. Training in digital risk and the inclusion of prompts in standardized risk proformas would promote good clinical practice and prevent a potential blind spot in general risk assessment.

App to support Recovery in Early Intervention Services (ARIES) study: protocol of a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a self-management Smartphone application for psychosis.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health interventions delivered through digital technology have potential applications in promoting recovery and improving outcomes among people in the early stages of psychosis. Self-management approaches are recommended for the treatment of psychosis and could be delivered via applications (apps) installed on Smartphones to provide low-cost accessible support. We describe the protocol for a feasibility trial investigating a self-management Smartphone app intervention for adults using Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this feasibility randomised controlled trial, 40 participants will be recruited from EIP services in London and Surrey. Twenty participants will be randomised to receive a supported self-management Smartphone app (My Journey 3) plus Treatment As Usual (TAU), while the other 20 participants will receive TAU only. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of this intervention in EIP services. Participant data will be collected at baseline and at two follow-up assessments conducted 4 months and 12 months post-baseline. Analysed outcome measures will include relapse of psychosis (operationalised as admission to a hospital or community acute alternative), mental health and well-being, recovery, quality of life and psychopathology. Semi-structured interviews with participants and EIP service clinicians will additionally explore experiences of using My Journey 3 and participating in the trial and suggestions for improving the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The App to support Recovery in Early Intervention Services study has been reviewed and approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee London-Brent (Research Ethics Committee reference: 15/LO/1453). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences, magazines and web publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10004994.

Mental health crisis resolution teams and crisis care systems in England: a national survey.

Aims and methodA national survey investigated the implementation of mental health crisis resolution teams (CRTs) in England. CRTs were mapped and team managers completed an online survey. RESULTS: Ninety-five per cent of mapped CRTs (n = 233) completed the survey. Few CRTs adhered fully to national policy guidelines. CRT implementation and local acute care system contexts varied substantially. Access to CRTs for working-age adults appears to have improved, compared with a similar survey in 2012, despite no evidence of higher staffing levels. Specialist CRTs for children and for older adults with dementia have been implemented in some areas but are uncommon.Clinical implicationsA national mandate and policy guidelines have been insufficient to implement CRTs fully as planned. Programmes to support adherence to the CRT model and CRT service improvement are required. Clearer policy guidance is needed on requirements for crisis care for young people and older adults.Declaration of interestNone.