Re-imagining crisis care: experiences of delivering and receiving the Assured brief psychological intervention for people presenting to Emergency Departments with self-harm.

Background: Risk of suicide is increased immediately following emergency department (ED) attendance for self-harm. Evidence suggests that brief psychological interventions delivered in EDs are effective for self-harm. The Assured intervention comprises an enhanced biopsychosocial assessment in the ED, collaborative safety planning and three rapid solution focused follow-up sessions. Aim: We addressed the following research questions: What were ED mental health liaison practitioners' and patients' experiences of the Assured intervention? What were the barriers and facilitators? What might the mechanisms be for improving experiences and outcomes? Methods: We conducted a feasibility study of the Assured intervention in four EDs in Southeast England. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 practitioners and 27 patients. Interviews were transcribed, coded line-by-line in Nvivo and thematically analysed using an inductive approach. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with a kappa coefficient of 0.744.

Acceptability and content validity of suicidality screening items: a qualitative study with perinatal women.

Background: Suicide is a leading cause of death for perinatal women. It is estimated that up to 50% of women with mental health issues during pregnancy and/or after birth are not identified, despite regular contact with healthcare services. Screening items are one way in which perinatal women needing support could be identified. However, research examining the content validity and acceptability of suicide-related screening items with perinatal women is limited. Aims: This study sought to: (i) assess the acceptability and content validity of 16 suicide-related items that have been administered and/or validated in perinatal populations; and (ii) explore the potential barriers and facilitators that may affect how women respond to these items when administered during pregnancy and after birth. Methods: Twenty-one cognitive and semi-structured interviews were conducted with pregnant and postnatal women in the UK. The sample included women who had experienced self-reported mental health problems and/or suicidality during the perinatal period, and those who had not. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a coding framework based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was applied to explore the data using deductive and inductive approaches. Results: Findings indicated that the acceptability and content validity of suicide-related items were largely unacceptable to perinatal women in their current form. Women found terms such as 'better off dead' or 'killing myself' uncomfortable. Most women preferred the phrase 'ending your life' as this felt less confronting. Comprehensibility was also problematic. Many women did not interpret 'harming myself' to include suicidality, nor did they feel that abstract language such as 'leave this world' was direct enough in relation to suicide. Stigma, fear, and shame was central to non-disclosure. Response options and recall periods further affected the content validity of items, which created additional barriers for identifying those needing support. Conclusions: Existing suicide-related screening items may not be acceptable to perinatal women. Maternity practitioners and researchers should consider the phrasing, clarity, context, and framing of screening items when discussing suicidality with perinatal women to ensure potential barriers are not being reinforced. The development of specific suicidality screening measures that are acceptable, appropriate, and relevant to perinatal women are warranted.

An Ideal-Type Analysis of People's Perspectives on Care Plans Received from the Emergency Department following a Self-Harm or Suicidal Crisis.

People presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) in a self-harm/suicidal crisis in England receive a psychosocial assessment and care plan. We aimed to construct a typology of peoples' perspectives on crisis care plans to explore the range of experiences of care plans. Thirty-two semi-structured interviews with people who presented to EDs following a self-harm/suicidal crisis in England were analysed using an ideal-type analysis. Cases were systematically compared to form clusters of cases with similar experiences of care plans. People's perspectives on care plans fitted into three types: (1) personalised care plans (n = 13), consisting of advice or referrals perceived as helpful; (2) generic care plans (n = 13), consisting of generic advice that the person already knew about or had already tried; and (3) did not receive a care plan (n = 6) for those who reported not receiving a care plan, or who were only provided with emergency contacts. Care planning in the ED following a suicidal/self-harm crisis was perceived as supportive if it provided realistic and personalised advice, based on what had/had not worked previously. However, many people reported not receiving a helpful care plan, as it was ill-fitted to their needs or was not considered sufficient to keep them safe, which may mean that these patients are at increased risk of repeat self-harm.

Implying implausibility and undermining versus accepting peoples' experiences of suicidal ideation and self-harm in Emergency Department psychosocial assessments.

Background: Patients seeking emergency care for self-harm and suicidality report varying experiences from being believed and taken seriously to not being believed and taken seriously. Epistemic injustice provides a conceptual framework to explore how peoples' experiences of self-harm and suicidality are believed or not. We use an empirical method -conversation analysis - to analyze epistemics in clinical communication, focusing on how knowledge is claimed, contested and negotiated. In courtroom, police and political interaction, conversation analysis has identified communication practices implying implausibility in a person's story to contest and recharacterize their accounts. Aims: To investigate communication practices in Emergency Department (ED) biopsychosocial assessments that may (1) undermine, imply implausibility and recharacterize or (2) accept peoples' experiences of suicidal ideation and self-harm. Methods: Using conversation analysis, we micro-analyzed verbal and non-verbal communication in five video-recorded biopsychosocial assessments with people presenting to the ED with self-harm or suicidal ideation, and conducted supplementary analysis of participants' medical records and post-visit interviews. We present three cases where experiences were not accepted and undermined/recharacterized and two cases where experiences were accepted and validated. Results: When peoples' experiences of suicidality and self-harm were not accepted or were undermined, questioners: did not acknowledge or accept the person's account; asked questions that implied inconsistency or implausibility ("Didn't you tell your GP that you were coping okay?"); juxtaposed contrasting information to undermine the person's account ("You said you were coping okay before, and now you're saying you feel suicidal"); asked questions asserting that, e.g., asking for help implied they were not intending to end their life ("So when you called 111 what were you expecting them to do"); and resistinged or directly questioned the person's account. Multiple practices across the assessment built on each other to assert that the person was not suicidal, did not look or act like they were suicidal; that the person's decision to attend the ED was not justified; that an overdose was impulsive and not intended to end life; asking why the person didn't take a more harmful medication to overdose; that self-harming behaviors were not that serious and should be in the person's control. Alternative characterizations were used to justify decisions not to provide further support or referrals to specialist services. At times, these practices were also delivered when speaking over the patient. When peoples' experiences were accepted, practitioners acknowledged, accepted, validated suicidality/self-harm and introduced a shared understanding of experiences that patients found helpful. Non-verbal feedback such as nodding and eye contact was central in acceptance of patients' accounts. Conclusion: These findings advance our understanding of how peoples' experiences of suicidality or self-harm are undermined or accepted in mental health encounters in the ED. They have important clinical implications: patients report that when their experiences are not accepted or undermined, this makes them more distressed, less hopeful about the future and discourages future help-seeking when in crisis. Conversely, acknowledging, accepting and validating suicidality/self-harm and introducing a new ways of understanding peoples' experiences may make people less suicidal and more hopeful, generates shared understanding and encourages future help-seeking.

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol.

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. METHOD: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

Asking about self-harm during risk assessment in psychosocial assessments in the emergency department: questions that facilitate and deter disclosure of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments are key settings for suicide prevention. Most people are deemed to be at no or low risk in final contacts before death. AIM: To micro-analyse how clinicians ask about suicidal ideation and/or self-harm in emergency department psychosocial assessments and how patients respond. METHOD: Forty-six psychosocial assessments between mental health clinicians and people with suicidal ideation and/or self-harm were video-recorded. Verbal and non-verbal features of 55 question-answer sequences about self-harm thoughts and/or actions were micro-analysed using conversation analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that question type was associated with patient disclosure. RESULTS: (a) Eighty-four per cent of initial questions (N = 46/55) were closed yes/no questions about self-harm thoughts and/or feelings, plans to self-harm, potential for future self-harm, predicting risk of future self-harm and being okay or keeping safe. Patients disclosed minimal information in response to closed questions, whereas open questions elicited ambivalent and information rich responses. (b) All closed questions were leading, with 54% inviting no and 46% inviting yes. When patients were asked no-inviting questions, the disclosure rate was 8%, compared to 65% when asked yes-inviting questions (P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). (c) Patients struggled to respond when asked to predict future self-harm or guarantee safety. (d) Half of closed questions had a narrow timeframe (e.g. at the moment, overnight) or were tied to possible discharge. CONCLUSION: Across assessments, there is a bias towards not uncovering thoughts and plans of self-harm through the cumulative effect of leading questions that invite a no response, their narrow timeframe and tying questions to possible discharge. Open questions, yes-inviting questions and asking how people feel about the future facilitate disclosure.

Predictors of Post-Traumatic Growth in a Sample of United Kingdom Mental and Community Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Experiences of adversity can generate positive psychological effects alongside negative impacts. Little research to date has evaluated predictors of post-traumatic growth in mental or community healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following a survey of 854 community and mental healthcare staff in the United Kingdom in July to September 2020, multiple linear regression was used to determine the association between hypothesised risk and protective factors (personal, organisational and environmental variables) and total scores on the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory-Short Version. Positive self-reflection activities, black and minority ethnic status, developing new healthcare knowledge and skills, connecting with friends and family, feeling supported by senior management, feeling supported by the UK people, and anxiety about the personal and work-related consequences of COVID-19 each significantly independently predicted greater post-traumatic growth. Working in a clinical role and in mental healthcare or community physical healthcare predicted lower post-traumatic growth. Our research supports the value of taking an organisational growth-focused approach to occupational health during times of adversity, by supporting staff to embrace opportunities for personal growth. Valuing staff's cultural and religious identity and encouraging self-reflective activities, such as mindfulness and meditation, may help to promote post-traumatic growth.

Measures of suicidality in perinatal women: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death for perinatal women. Identifying women at risk of suicide is critical. Research on the validity and/or reliability of measures assessing suicidality in perinatal women is limited. This review sought to: (1) identify; and (2) evaluate the psychometric properties of suicidality measures validated in perinatal populations. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to January 2022. Additional articles were identified through citation tracking. Study quality was assessed using an adapted tool, and the psychometric properties of measures were reviewed and presented using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 208 studies were included. Thirty-five studies reported psychometric data on ten suicidality measures. Fifteen studies reported both validity and reliability data, 12 reported more than one type of validity, seven validated more than one measure and four only reported reliability. Nearly all measures primarily screened for depression, with an item or subscale assessing suicidal ideation and/or behaviours. Three measures were specifically developed for perinatal women, but only two were validated in more than one study. The Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS), suicidal thoughts subscale, was validated most frequently. LIMITATIONS: Methodological differences and variability between the measures (e.g., suicidality construct assessed, number of items and administration) precluded direct comparisons. CONCLUSION: Further validation of suicidality measures is needed in perinatal women. Screening for perinatal suicidality often occurs in the context of depression. The development of a standalone measure specifically assessing suicidality in perinatal women may be warranted, particularly for use in maternity care settings.

A Systematic Review of Training Interventions for Emergency Department Providers and Psychosocial Interventions delivered by Emergency Department Providers for Patients who self-harm.

OBJECTIVES: People who self-harm frequently present to the emergency department (ED) and are treated by generalist healthcare staff with no specialist mental health training. We systematically reviewed (i) training interventions for generalist ED providers and (ii) psychosocial interventions delivered predominantly by generalist ED providers for people who self-harm. METHOD: Five databases were searched for studies reporting on training interventions for generalist ED staff (at least 50% of the sample needed to be generalist ED staff) or psychosocial interventions for people who self-harm delivered predominantly by generalist ED staff. No limitations were placed regarding study design/country. Narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Fifteen studies from high-income countries were included. Nine studies of moderate methodological quality evaluated training for generalist ED providers (n = 1587). Six studies of good methodological quality evaluated psychosocial interventions for adults who self-harm (n = 3133). Only one randomized controlled trial was identified. Training was linked with pre-post improvements in staff knowledge, and less consistently with improvement in skills, attitudes, and confidence. Evidence on patient outcomes was lacking. Patient-level interventions involving common suicide prevention strategies-safety planning and follow-up contact-were consistently linked to pre-post reductions in suicide attempts. Effects on treatment engagement and psychiatric admissions were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for further RCTs to improve the evidence base for ED generalist providers managing patients with self-harm. Evidence supports potential benefits of training for improving staff knowledge, attitudes, and skills, and of safety planning and follow-up contact for reducing repeat suicide attempts. HIGHLIGHTSMore RCTs are needed to improve the evidence base for ED providers managing self-harmSafety planning and follow up contacts are linked to reductions in repeat suicide attemptsFuture research should investigate the impact of staff training on patient outcomes.

Communication in youth mental health clinical encounters: Introducing the agential stance.

When young people seek support from mental health care practitioners, the encounters may affect the young people's sense of self, and in particular undermine their sense of agency. For this study, an interdisciplinary team of academics and young people collaboratively analysed video-recorded encounters between young people and mental healthcare practitioners in emergency services. They identified five communication techniques that practitioners can use to avoid undermining the young person's sense of agency in the clinical encounter. They conceptualise the use of those techniques as the adoption of an agential stance towards the young person. The agential stance consists of: (a) validating the young person's experiences, (b) legitimising the young person's choice to seek help, (c) refraining from objectifying the young person, (d) affirming the young person's capacity to contribute to positive change, and (e) involving the young person in the decision-making process.

Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: Telemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls, or SMS text messages) is becoming increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated into routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach and when face-to-face care is needed. OBJECTIVE: This rapid realist review aims to develop a theory about which telemental health approaches work (or do not work), for whom, in which contexts, and through what mechanisms. METHODS: Rapid realist reviewing involves synthesizing relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMO configurations encapsulate theories about what works for whom and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from 2 previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health; an updated search using the strategy from these reviews; a call for relevant evidence, including "gray literature," to the public and key experts; and website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organizations. CMO configurations formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through discussions with an expert reference group, including researchers with relevant lived experience and frontline clinicians, and consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups. RESULTS: A total of 108 scientific and gray literature sources were included. From our initial CMO configurations, we derived 30 overarching CMO configurations within four domains: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasized the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying the successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Service user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively, and fostering strong therapeutic relationships need to be prioritized in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies coproduced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimize telemental health implementation in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42021260910; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260910.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a technology-supported and solution-focused intervention (DIALOG+) in treatment of patients with chronic depression-study protocol for a multi-site, cluster randomised controlled trial [TACK].

BACKGROUND: Many with an acute depressive disorder go on to develop chronic depression, despite ongoing care. There are few specifically designed interventions to treat chronic depression. DIALOG+, a technology-assisted intervention based on the principles of solution-focused therapy, may be beneficial. It has been shown to be effective as a treatment for patients with psychotic disorders, especially in regards to increasing quality of life. DIALOG+ was designed to be flexibly applied and not diagnosis-specific, aiming to structure communication and generate a personally-tailored care plan. This cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is part of a programme of research to adapt and test DIALOG+ for patients with chronic depression. METHODS: Patients will be eligible for the trial, if they have exhibited symptoms of depression or non-psychotic low mood for at least 2 years, have regular contact with a clinician and have a low subjective quality of life and moderate depressive symptoms. Clinicians, who routinely see eligible patients, will be recruited from a number of sites across NHS England. Clusters will have between 1 and 6 patients per clinician and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (DIALOG+) or active control group (treatment as usual + DIALOG scale). Clinicians in the intervention group are trained and asked to deliver the intervention regularly for 12 months. Active control participants receive treatment as usual and are asked to rate their satisfaction with areas of life and treatment on the DIALOG scale at the end of the clinical session. Approximately 112 clinician clusters will be recruited to reach a total patient sample size of 376. Clinical and social outcomes including costs are assessed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome will be subjective quality of life at 12 months. DISCUSSION: This definitive multi-site, cluster RCT aims to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of DIALOG+ for people with chronic depression. If shown to be effective for this patient population it could be used to improve outcomes of mental health care on a larger scale, ensuring that patients with complex and co-morbid diagnoses can benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11301686 . Registered on 13 Jun 2019.

Experiences of crisis care among service users with complex emotional needs or a diagnosis of 'personality disorder', and other stakeholders: systematic review and meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature.

BACKGROUND: Mental health crises are common in people with complex emotional needs (our preferred working term for people diagnosed with a 'personality disorder'), yet this population is often dissatisfied with the crisis care they receive. Exploring their experiences and views on what could be improved, and those of carers and healthcare staff, is key to developing better services. AIMS: We aimed to synthesise the relevant qualitative literature. METHOD: Five databases were searched. Eligible studies included service users with a diagnosis of personality disorder and their carers or relevant staff, focused on crisis responses and used a qualitative design. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, most focusing on emergency departments. Four meta-themes emerged: (a) acceptance and rejection when presenting to crisis care: limited options and lack of involvement of carers; (b) interpersonal processes: importance of the therapeutic relationship and establishing a framework for treatment; (c) managing recovery from a crisis: clear recovery plan and negotiating collaboration; and (d) equipping and supporting staff: training and emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that emergency departments have major limitations as settings to provide crisis care for people with complex emotional needs, but there is a lack of research exploring alternatives. The quality of the therapeutic relationship was central to how care was experienced, with collaborative and optimistic staff highly valued. Staff reported feeling poorly supported in responding to the needs of this population. Research looking at experiences of a range of care options and how to improve these is needed.

Experience-based investigation and codesign of approaches to prevent and reduce Mental Health Act use (CO-PACT): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (MHA) in England and Wales confirmed increasing levels of compulsory detentions, especially for racialised communities. This research aims to: (a) understand the causes of and propose preventive opportunities to reduce the disproportionate use of the MHA, (b) use an adapted form of experience-based codesign (EBCD) to facilitate system-wide changes and (c) foreground the voices of service users at risk of detention to radically reform policy and implement new legislation to ensure the principles of equity are retained. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative study, using a comparative case study design. This study is composed of five work packages; photovoice workshops will be conducted in eight local systems with service users and healthcare professionals separately (WP1); a series of three EBCD workshops in each local system to develop approaches that reduce detentions and improve the experience of people from racialised communities. This will inform a comparative analysis and national knowledge exchange workshop (WP2); an evaluation led by the patient and public involvement group to better understand what it is like for people to participate in photovoice, codesign and participatory research (WP3); an economic evaluation (WP4) and dissemination strategy (WP5). The impact of the involvement of patients and public will be independently evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and granted ethical approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (21/SC/0204). The outputs from this study will be shared through several local and national channels.

Autism diagnosis as a social process.

LAY ABSTRACT: When a child or adult is referred for an autism diagnosis, clinicians from different backgrounds work together to make a diagnostic decision. A few studies have asked clinicians in interview how they feel about diagnosis and what the challenges are. We interviewed clinicians in child and adult assessment services in England, and from different professional backgrounds, about the challenges of autism diagnosis and the factors that might influence the assessment process. We found that there were a number of challenges in autism diagnosis, especially when someone coming for diagnosis was considered to be near the diagnostic threshold. Clinicians told us that making a diagnosis was like creating a 'narrative': looking at many different factors that told a story about a person, rather than just looking at the results of diagnostic tests. Clinicians do not always agree with the results of those tests and have to use their specialist clinical judgement to make decisions. Clinicians were concerned about the amount of time people have to wait for an autism assessment, and the resulting pressure on the assessment process. The findings of this work can help us to understand how diagnosis happens and consider ways in which it can be improved for adults, children and families coming for assessment, as well as clinicians.

Psychosocial Assessment in the Emergency Department.

Background: In the United Kingdom, suicide risk is assessed in the emergency department (ED) in a face-to-face assessment with psychiatric liaison practitioners. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of psychosocial assessment after presenting with self-harm/suicidality. Method: A total of 28 patients were interviewed within 2 weeks of ED attendance for self-harm/suicidality. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: People described two different experiences. A therapeutic interaction was about the "person" and made people feel their life mattered and instilled hope for the future. This was characterized by: unscripted conversation; warmth promoting disclosure; psychological exploration of feelings; validation of distress; and a coproduced care plan. A formulaic assessment was about the "risk" and made people feel their life did not matter and hopeless about the future. This was characterized by: feeling judged and not worthy of help; a focus on risk and form filling; a trivial treatment plan; and loss of trust in services. Limitations: Our study comprised a single ED and used a non-diverse sample. Conclusion: Psychosocial assessment in the ED impacts on hope for people in crisis. A focus on therapeutic communication that is about the person, as well as the risk, improves patient experience, decreases distress, and instills hope that life is worth living.

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) as an outcome measure in the treatment of common mental disorders (CMD) in primary care settings. METHODS: 127 participants attending up to 5 sessions of therapy for CMD in primary care self-rated the SWEMWBS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales. SWEMWBS's construct validity and sensitivity to change was evaluated against the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 across multiple time points in two ways: correlation coefficients were calculated between the measures at each time point; and sensitivity to change over time was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Score distributions on SWEMWBS, but not PHQ-9 and GAD-7, met criteria for normality. At baseline, 92.9% (118/127) of participants scored above clinical threshold on either PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Correlations between SWEMWBS and PHQ-9 scores were calculated at each respective time point and ranged from 0.601 to 0.793. Correlations between SWEMWBS and GAD-7 scores were calculated similarly and ranged from 0.630 to 0.743. Significant improvements were seen on all three scales over time. Changes in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were curvilinear with greatest improvement between sessions 1 and 2. Change in SWEMWBS was linear over the five sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that SWEMWBS is acceptable as a CMD outcome measure in primary care settings, both in terms of construct validity and sensitivity to change. Given patient preference for positively over negatively framed measures and statistical advantages of measures which are normally distributed, SWEMWBS could be used as an alternative to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 in monitoring and evaluating CMD treatment.

Dueling in the clinic: When patients and providers disagree about healthcare recommendations.

We begin by considering the evolving nature of the physician-patient relationship. Research shows that physicians have retained significant authority as health professionals but not to the extent that they had in the golden age of doctoring. Instead, as patient centered care movements gained momentum, patients became empowered through policies and parallel consumer social movements. Patient-centered care advocates envisioned an active patient who would ask questions and voice preferences and concerns but would remain rational and thus make choices that remained in line with standard of care practices. Instead, we discuss research on patient communication with clinicians that has documented an unexpected form of patient participation: patients sometimes advocate for treatments that are not necessarily good for them and sometimes resist recommendations that are the current standard of care. We review the varied ways in which these engaged patients influence diagnoses and treatment/care outcomes. Finally, we introduce the eight papers that comprise this special section of Social Science and Medicine on dueling in the clinic.

Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance.

People presenting to the emergency department with self-harm or thoughts of suicide undergo a psychosocial assessment involving recommendations for e.g. contact with other practitioners, charity helplines or coping strategies. In these assessments, patients frequently adopt a negative stance towards potential recommendations. Analysing 35 video-recorded liaison psychiatry psychosocial assessments from an emergency department in England (2018-2019), we ask how these practitioners transform this negative stance into acceptance. We show that practitioners use three steps to anticipate and address negative stance (1) asking questions about the patient's experience/understanding that help the patient to articulate a negative stance (e.g., "what do you think about that"); (2) accepting or validating the reasons underlying the negative stance (e.g., "that's a very real fear and thought to have"); and (3) showing the patient that their reasons were incorporated in the recommendation (e.g., "it's telephone support if you're a bit more uncomfortable with face to face"). These steps personalise the recommendation based on the patient's specific experiences and understanding. When practitioners followed all three of these steps, the patient moved from a negative stance to acceptance in 84% of cases. When practitioners made a recommendation but did not follow all three steps, the patient moved from a negative stance to acceptance in only 14% of cases. It is not the case that each communication practice works on its own to promote patient acceptance, rather Steps 1 and 2 build on each other sequentially to develop and demonstrate shared understanding of the patient's negative stance. In this way, acceptance and validation play an indispensable role in addressing a patient's concerns about treatment.

When patients and clinician (dis)agree about the nature of the problem: The role of displays of shared understanding in acceptance of treatment.

Globally, 4.4% of the world's population suffer from depressive disorder, and 3.6% from anxiety disorder. Previous work found considerable negotiation between providers and patients about the nature of mental health problems and frequent patient resistance to treatment. However, how doctor-patient shared understanding of the problem is reflected in treatment recommendations and whether this is consequential for patient acceptance of treatment is poorly understood. This study explored shared understanding of the problem and patient acceptance of treatment using conversation analysis. In 52 U.K. video recorded primary care consultations (collected July 2014-April 2015), 33 treatment recommendations for medication or talking therapy were identified. Shared understanding was explored focusing on: whether the patient presented the mental health problem as their primary initial concern and how they characterised the concern; whether the mental health concern was raised by the patient; and how the doctor aligned with the patient's earlier characterisation of the problem in the treatment recommendation itself. These phenomena were coded for each treatment recommendation and the impact on treatment acceptance was explored. Patients accepted the recommendation immediately in 38% cases and actively resisted in 62% cases. However, two communication behaviors were associated with patient acceptance: recommending treatment for the patient's initial focal concern and doctors' turn design in the recommendation itself, i.e., using the patient's earlier words from the initial problem presentation to describe and characterise the problem. Given the global burden of mental health problems and frequent patient resistance to treatment, understanding how professionals can engage more closely with the patient's perspective is important. When doctors use the patient's precise words from the initial problem presentation in the treatment recommendation, this displays an understanding of the patient's perspective and personalisation of treatment based on the underlying biomedical or social causes, which then impacts on patient acceptance of treatment.