Use of social media in recruiting young people to mental health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: This review explored the literature on the use of social media in recruiting young people, aged 13-18 years, to mental health research. It aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment and strategies to improve participation in future research. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Articles published between January 2011 and February 2023 were searched for on PubMed, Scopus, Medline (via EBSCOhost) and Cochrane Library databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that outlined social media as a recruitment method and recruited participants aged 13-18 years. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data was extracted by two reviewers independently and cross-checked by a third reviewer. Data on study design, aims, participants, recruitment methods and findings related specifically to social media as a recruitment tool were collected. RESULTS: 24 journal articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies were predominantly surveys (n=13) conducted in the USA (n=16) recruiting via Facebook (n=16) and/or Instagram (n=14). Only nine of the included articles provided a summary of success and reviewed the efficacy of social media recruitment for young people in mental health research. Type of advertisement, the language used, time of day and the use of keywords were all found to be factors that may influence the success of recruitment through social media; however, as these are based on findings from a small number of studies, such potential influences require further investigation. CONCLUSION: Social media recruitment can be a successful method for recruiting young people to mental health research. Further research is needed into recruiting socioeconomically marginalised groups using this method, as well as the effectiveness of new social media platforms. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/mak75/).

Feasibility, acceptability and practicality of transcranial stimulation in obsessive compulsive symptoms (FEATSOCS): A randomised controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive form of neurostimulation with potential for development as a self-administered intervention. It has shown promise as a safe and effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in a small number of studies. The two most favourable stimulation targets appear to be the left orbitofrontal cortex (L-OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). We report the first study to test these targets head-to-head within a randomised sham-controlled trial. Our aim was to inform the design of future clinical research studies, by focussing on the acceptability and safety of the intervention, feasibility of recruitment, adherence to and tolerability of tDCS, and the size of any treatment-effect. METHODS: FEATSOCS was a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over, multicentre study. Twenty adults with DSM-5-defined OCD were randomised to treatment, comprising three courses of clinic-based tDCS (SMA, L-OFC, Sham), randomly allocated and delivered in counterbalanced order. Each course comprised four 20-min 2 mA stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by a 'washout' period of at least four weeks. Assessments were carried out by raters who were blind to stimulation-type. Clinical outcomes were assessed before, during, and up to four weeks after stimulation. Patient representatives with lived experience of OCD were actively involved at all stages. RESULTS: Clinicians showed willingness to recruit participants and recruitment to target was achieved. Adherence to treatment and study interventions was generally good, with only two dropouts. There were no serious adverse events, and adverse effects which did occur were transient and mostly mild in intensity. Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were numerically improved from baseline to 24 h after the final stimulation across all intervention groups but tended to worsen thereafter. The greatest effect size was seen in the L-OFC arm, (Cohen's d = -0.5 [95% CI -1.2 to 0.2] versus Sham), suggesting this stimulation site should be pursued in further studies. Additional significant sham referenced improvements in secondary outcomes occurred in the L-OFC arm, and to a lesser extent with SMA stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: tDCS was acceptable, practicable to apply, well-tolerated and appears a promising potential treatment for OCD. The L-OFC represents the most promising target based on clinical changes, though the effects on OCD symptoms were not statistically significant compared to sham. SMA stimulation showed lesser signs of promise. Further investigation of tDCS in OCD is warranted, to determine the optimal stimulation protocol (current, frequency, duration), longer-term effectiveness and brain-based mechanisms of effect. If efficacy is substantiated, consideration of home-based approaches represents a rational next step. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17937049. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17937049.

Do people with intellectual disabilities understand their prescription medication? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to experience poor health than the general population and are frequently prescribed multiple medications. Therefore, it is important that people with intellectual disabilities understand their medication and potential adverse effects. METHOD: A scoping review explored people with intellectual disabilities' knowledge of prescription medications, their risks and how medication understanding can be improved. RESULTS: Ten journal articles were included. People with intellectual disabilities often lacked understanding of their medication, including its name, purpose and when and how to take it. Participants were often confused or unaware of adverse effects associated with their medication. Information was sometimes explained to carers rather than people with intellectual disabilities. Some interventions and accessible information helped to improve knowledge in people with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSION: There is a need for accessible and tailored information about medication to be discussed with people with intellectual disabilities in order to meet legal and best practice standards.