Food insecurity in adults with severe mental illness living in Northern England: A co-produced cross-sectional study.

AIM: This study aimed to explore food insecurity prevalence and experiences of adults with severe mental illness living in Northern England. METHODS: This mixed-methods cross-sectional study took place between March and October 2022. Participants were adults with self-reported severe mental illness living in Northern England. The survey included demographic, health, and financial questions. Food insecurity was measured using the US Department of Agriculture Adult Food Security measure. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression; and qualitative data using content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 135 participants completed the survey, with a mean age of 44.7 years (SD: 14.1, range: 18-75 years). Participants were predominantly male (53.3%), white (88%) and from Yorkshire (50.4%). The food insecurity prevalence was 50.4% (n = 68). There was statistical significance in food insecurity status by region (p = 0.001); impacts of severe mental illness on activities of daily living (p = 0.02); and the Covid pandemic on food access (p < 0.001). The North West had the highest prevalence of food insecurity (73.3%); followed by the Humber and North East regions (66.7%); and Yorkshire (33.8%). In multivariable binary logistic regression, severe mental illness' impact on daily living was the only predictive variable for food insecurity (odds ratio = 4.618, 95% confidence interval: 1.071-19.924, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of food insecurity in this study is higher than is reported in similar studies (41%). Mental health practitioners should routinely assess and monitor food insecurity in people living with severe mental illness. Further research should focus on food insecurity interventions in this population.

Behavioural activation to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on older people in England and Wales (BASIL+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults were more likely to be socially isolated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased risk of depression and loneliness. We aimed to investigate whether a behavioural activation intervention delivered via telephone could mitigate depression and loneliness in at-risk older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: BASIL+ (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation) was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial conducted among patients recruited from general practices in England and Wales, and was designed to assess the effectiveness of behavioural activation in mitigating depression and loneliness among older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible participants were aged 65 years and older, socially isolated, with a score of 5 or higher on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and had multiple long-term conditions. Participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (behavioural activation) or control groups by use of simple randomisation without stratification. Behavioural activation was delivered by telephone; participants were offered up to eight weekly sessions with trained BASIL+ Support Workers. Behavioural activation was adapted to maintain social connections and encourage socially reinforcing activities. Participants in the control group received usual care with existing COVID-19 wellbeing resources. The primary clinical outcome was self-reported depression severity, assessed by the PHQ-9, at 3 months. Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation and analysis was by treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN63034289). FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 449 eligible participants were identified and 435 from 26 general practices were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the behavioural activation intervention (n=218) or to the control group (usual care with signposting; n=217). The mean age of participants was 75·7 years (SD 6·7); 270 (62·1%) of 435 participants were female, and 418 (96·1%) were White. Participants in the intervention group attended an average of 5·2 (SD 2·9) of eight remote behavioural activation sessions. The adjusted mean difference in PHQ-9 scores between the control and intervention groups at 3 months was -1·65 (95% CI -2·54 to -0·75, p=0·0003). No adverse events were reported that were attributable to the behavioural activation intervention. INTERPRETATION: Behavioural activation is an effective and potentially scalable intervention that can reduce symptoms of depression and emotional loneliness in at-risk groups in the short term. The findings of this trial add to the range of strategies to improve the mental health of older adults with multiple long-term conditions. These results can be helpful to policy makers beyond the pandemic in reducing the global burden of depression and addressing the health impacts of loneliness, particularly in at-risk groups. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Cost-effectiveness of behavioral activation compared to treatment as usual for depressed older adults in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression in older adults is associated with decreased quality of life and increased utilization of healthcare services. Behavioral activation (BA) is an effective treatment for late-life depression, but the cost-effectiveness compared to treatment as usual (TAU) is unknown. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a cluster randomized controlled multicenter trial including 161 older adults (≥65 years) with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Outcome measures were depression (response on the QIDS-SR), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Cost and effect differences were estimated using bivariate linear regression models, and statistical uncertainty was estimated with bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of cost-effectiveness at different ceiling ratios. RESULTS: Societal costs were statistically non-significantly lower in BA compared to TAU (mean difference (MD) -€485, 95 % CI -3861 to 2792). There were no significant differences in response on the QIDS-SR (MD 0.085, 95 % CI -0.015 to 0.19), and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95 % CI -0.0037 to 0.055). On average, BA was dominant over TAU (i.e., more effective and less expensive), although the probability of dominance was only 0.60 from the societal perspective and 0.85 from the health care perspective for both QIDS-SR response and QALYs. DISCUSSION: Although the results suggest that BA is dominant over TAU, there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness estimates which precludes firm conclusions.

Living with depression and diabetes: A qualitative study in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Diabetes and depression are both serious health conditions. While their relationship is bidirectional and each condition adversely affects outcomes for the other, they are treated separately. In low and middle income countries, such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, health systems are already stretched and the integration of diabetes and depression care is rarely a priority. Within this context through interviews with patients, healthcare workers and policy makers the study explored: lived experiences of people living with depression and diabetes, current practice in mental health and diabetes care and barriers and perspectives on integrating a brief psychological therapy into diabetes care. The findings of the study included: differing patient and practitioner understandings of distress/depression, high levels of stigma for mental health and a lack of awareness and training on treating depression. While it was apparent there is a need for more holistic care and the concept of a brief psychological intervention appeared acceptable to participants, many logistical barriers to integrating a mental health intervention into diabetes care were identified. The study highlights the importance of context and of recognising drivers and understandings of distress when planning for more integrated mental and physical health services, and specifically when adapting and implementing a new intervention into existing services.