The impact of reduced routine community mental healthcare on people from minority ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these. AIMS: To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare. METHOD: A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts. RESULTS: Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups' engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners.

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 Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework: a model to reduce mental health inequity in England and Wales.

The Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) is an Organisational Competence Framework (OCF), recommended by the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act as a means to improve mental health access, experience and outcomes for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly Black people. This is a practical framework that should be co-produced with and tailored to the needs of service users, based on quality improvement and place-based approaches. We aim to use the PCREF to address the longstanding epistemic justices experienced by people with mental health problems, particularly those from minoritised ethnic groups. We will outline the work that led to the proposal, the research on racial inequalities in mental health in the UK, and how the PCREF will build on previous interventions to address these. By taking these into account, the PCREF should support a high minimum standard of mental health care for all.

Assessment of suicide risk in mental health practice: shifting from prediction to therapeutic assessment, formulation, and risk management.

Suicide prevention in psychiatric practice has been dominated by efforts to predict risk of suicide in individual patients. However, traditional risk prediction measures have been shown repeatedly in studies from high income countries to be ineffective. Several factors might contribute to clinicians' preoccupation with risk prediction, which can have negative effects on patient care and also on clinicians where prediction is seen as failing. The model of therapeutic risk assessment, formulation, and management we outline in this article regards all patients with mental health problems as potentially at increased risk of suicide. It is aimed at reducing risk through use of a person-centred approach. We describe how a move towards therapeutic risk assessment, formulation, and risk management, including collaborative safety planning, could help clinicians develop a more tailored approach to managing risk for all patients, incorporating potentially therapeutic effects as well as helping to identify other risk reduction interventions. Such an approach could lead to enhanced patient safety and quality of care, which is more acceptable to patients.

System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus.

BACKGROUND: This consensus statement was developed because there are concerns about the appropriate use of opioids for acute pain management, with opposing views in the literature. Consensus statement on policies for system-level interventions may help inform organisations such as management structures, government agencies and funding bodies. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey using a modified Delphi methodology focusing on policies, at the system level, rather than at the prescriber or patient level. We aimed to provide consensus statements for current developments and priorities for future developments. RESULTS: Twenty-five experts from a variety of fields with experience in acute pain management were invited to join a review panel, of whom 23 completed a modified Delphi survey of policies designed to improve the safety and quality of opioids prescribing for acute pain in the secondary care setting. Strong agreement, defined as consistent among> 75% of panellists, was observed for ten statements. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified Delphi study, we found agreement among a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representation, on prioritisation of policies for system-level interventions, to improve governance, pain management, patient/consumers care, safety and engagement.

Barriers to self-management of chronic pain in primary care: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Supported self-management is a recommended intervention for chronic pain. Effective self-management should enable an individual to reduce the impact of pain on their everyday life. Clinical guidelines suggest primary care services have a role to play in supporting self-management of chronic pain. AIM: To examine the opinions of primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with chronic pain and their carers, in order to identify possible barriers to the facilitation and adoption of self-management. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study using focus groups in locations throughout Scotland. METHOD: Eighteen focus groups were held with patients and HCPs. Fifty-four patients, nine carers, and 38 HCPs attended the groups. RESULTS: Four categories of barriers were found. 1) Patient-HCP consultation: some patients felt a discussion about self-management came too late or not at all. Communication and building positive relations were sometimes challenging. 2) Patient experience: the emotional impact of pain was difficult and patients often felt unsupported by HCPs. 3) Limited treatment options: some participants felt there was a tendency for overmedicalisation. 4) Organisational constraints: short appointment times, long waiting lists, and a compartmentalised NHS created challenges. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates some of the barriers faced by HCPs and patients in the facilitation and adoption of self-management of chronic pain. If self-management is to be an important approach to chronic pain, primary care services need to be designed to address the barriers identified.

American Indians with substance use disorders: treatment needs and comorbid conditions.

BACKGROUND: American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) experience significant disparities in health status and access to care. Furthermore, only limited data are available on substance use, mental health disorders, and treatment needs for this population. Addressing such disparities and developing culturally relevant, effective interventions for AI/AN communities require participatory research. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The Western States Node of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network partnered with two American Indian substance abuse treatment programs: an urban health center and a reservation-based program to assess client characteristics, drug use patterns, and treatment needs. Data collected by staff members at the respective programs from urban (n = 74) and reservation (n = 121) clients were compared. Additional sub-analysis examined patients reporting regular opioid use and mood disorders. RESULTS: Findings indicate that urban clients were more likely to report employment problems, polysubstance use, and a history of abuse. Reservation-based clients reported having more severe medical problems and a greater prevalence of psychiatric problems. Clients who were regular opioid users were more likely to report having a chronic medical condition, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, polysubstance abuse, and IV drug use. Clients who reported a history of depression had twice as many lifetime hospitalizations and more than five times as many days with medical problems. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this project provide information about the patterns of substance abuse and the importance of comprehensive assessments of trauma and comorbid conditions. Results point to the need for integrative coordinated care and auxiliary services for AI/AN clients seeking treatment for substance use disorders.

Results of the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) trial by stroke subtypes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The SPARCL trial showed that atorvastatin 80 mg/d reduces the risk of stroke and other cardiovascular events in patients with recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). We tested the hypothesis that the benefit of treatment varies according to index event stroke subtype. METHODS: Subjects with stroke or TIA without known coronary heart disease were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/d or placebo. The SPARCL primary end point was fatal or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points included major cardiovascular events (MCVE; stroke plus major coronary events). Cox regression models testing for an interaction with treatment assignment were used to explore potential differences in efficacy based on stroke subtype. RESULTS: For subjects randomized to atorvastatin versus placebo, a primary end point occurred in 13.1% versus 18.6% of those classified as having large vessel disease (LVD, 15.8% of 4,731 participants), in 13.1% versus 15.5% of those with small vessel disease (SVD, 29.8%), in 11.2% versus 12.7% of those with ischemic stroke of unknown cause (21.5%), in 7.6% versus 8.8% of those with TIA (30.9%), and in 22.2% versus 8.3% of those with hemorrhagic stroke (HS, 2%) at baseline. There was no difference in the efficacy of treatment for either the primary end point (LVD hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 1.02, TIA HR 0.81, CI 0.57 to 1.17, SVD HR 0.85, CI 0.64 to 1.12, unknown cause HR 0.87, CI 0.61 to 1.24, HS HR 3.24, CI 1.01 to 10.4; P for heterogeneity=0.421), or MCVEs (P for heterogeneity=0.360) based on subtype of the index event. As compared to subjects with LVD strokes, those with SVD had similar MCVE rates (19.2% versus 18.5% over the course of the trial), and similar overall reductions in stroke and MCVEs. CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin 80 mg/d is similarly efficacious in preventing strokes and other cardiovascular events, irrespective of baseline ischemic stroke subtype.

Structural and functional properties of antibodies to the superantigen TSST-1 and their relationship to menstrual toxic shock syndrome.

Menstrual toxic shock syndrome (mTSS) is an acute febrile disease accompanied by hypotension and multiple organ involvement. Infection with Staphylococcus aureus producing the superantigen toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1) vaginally is necessary; however, only a small fraction of those infected with TSST-1 producing bacteria actually develop mTSS, suggesting that host factors modulate disease susceptibility. Serum antibodies to the toxin protect against development of the syndrome, but not all antibodies can neutralize the toxin. We set out to determine whether risk of developing the syndrome is related to the absence of neutralizing antibody and if antibody isotypes influence the neutralization capacity. In healthy subjects, TSST-1-binding serum antibodies were exclusively of the IgG and IgM classes; however, toxin-neutralizing capacity was correlated to the TSST-1-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies (r (2)=0.88, p<0.0001 and 0.33, p<0.0086, respectively) but not with IgM antibodies. Specific IgA was not detectable. Compared to healthy matched controls who were colonized vaginally with S. aureus, IgG1 anti-TSST-1 antibodies and toxin neutralizing activity was lacking in all of the acute phases and in the majority of convalescent sera, suggesting that these patients may be incapable of generating TSST-1 neutralizing antibodies. These new findings support the hypothesis that host factors are important in the development of mTSS and that the anti-toxin isotype impacts antibody functionality.