The lived experiences of relatives of autistic adults, and their perceptions of their relationships with autistic adults across multiple age-related transitions and demands: A qualitative interview study with reflexive thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to better understand autism across the life course, including the lives of both autistic people and supporting relatives. As part of a larger mixed methods cohort study involving autistic adults, carers and relatives this sub-study focused on the experiences of relatives alone to learn more about the lives of people from the wider personal networks. Our research questions were: 1. What are the experiences of family members who care for and/or support autistic adults, 2. How can the viewpoints of relatives add to what we know about transitions and challenges experienced by autistic adults, and 3. What strategies/support have been helpful for adults and relatives? METHODS: Relatives of autistic adults were purposively sampled and recruited using the Relatives/Carers cohort from the Adult Autism Spectrum Cohort-UK. 18 participants aged 31-81years who were related to 16 autistic adults aged 18-57years were interviewed for 24-91minutes. Interview transcripts were examined using reflexive thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Two overarching themes were developed, 'Family support goes a long way in caring for autistic adults' and 'When families turn to society for support' with subthemes. Relatives described benefits they had gained and their admiration for autistic adults. They reflected on how they gave support for independence in various contexts of dependence. They also identified the challenges that both autistic adults and families face navigating support systems (for example for healthcare and employment). An important novel outcome was the advocated value of role-models with lived experience who come from outside of the family. RECOMMENDATIONS: The findings lead to recommendations for: (i) Strategies to reduce the barriers for support that are faced by autistic individuals and relatives during crisis points; (ii) recognition and support for what enables both relatives and autistic adults to function independently (e.g. funded activities, flexible employment); (iii) future planning conversations to include relatives who can enhance knowledge and help plan for future care or support needs for autistic adults and (iv) opportunities for role models (persons with lived experience, autistic adults and relatives) to inspire others and disseminate knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add valuable insights into the experiences of relatives of autistic adults and challenge the reader to have greater appreciation of the many roles relatives can contribute across time and in a variety of contexts. These perspectives add important information for those working with and planning provision for autistic adults.

Use of a targeted, computer/web-based guided self-help psychoeducation toolkit for distressing hallucinations (MUSE) in people with an at-risk mental state for psychosis: protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals who access at-risk mental state (ARMS) services often have unusual sensory experiences and levels of distress that lead them to seek help. The Managing Unusual Sensory Experiences (MUSE) treatment is a brief symptom targeted intervention that draws on psychological explanations to help account for unusual experiences. Practitioners use formulation and behavioural experiments to support individuals to make sense of their experiences and enhance coping strategies. The primary objective of this feasibility trial is to resolve key uncertainties before a definitive trial and inform parameters of a future fully powered trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 88 participants aged 14-35 accepted into ARMS services, experiencing hallucinations/unusual sensory experiences which are considered by the patient to be a key target problem will be recruited from UK National Health Service (NHS) sites and randomised using 1:1 allocation (stratified by site, gender, and age) to either 6-8 sessions of MUSE or time-matched treatment as usual. Participants and therapists will be unblinded, research assessors are blinded. Blinded assessment will occur at baseline, 12 weeks and 20 weeks postrandomisation. Data will be reported in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Primary trial outcomes are feasibility outcomes, primary participant outcomes are functioning and hallucinations. Additional analysis will investigate potential psychological mechanisms and secondary mental well-being outcomes. Trial progression criteria follows signal of efficacy and uses an analytical framework with a traffic-light system to determine viability of a future trial. Subsequent analysis of the NHS England Mental Health Services Data Set 3 years postrandomisation will assess long-term transition to psychosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has received Research Ethics Committee approval (Newcastle North Tyneside 1 REC; 23/NE/0032). Participants provide written informed consent; young people provide assent with parental consent. Dissemination will be to ARMS Services, participants, public and patient forums, peer-reviewed publications and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58558617.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective: To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions: Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.10 to -0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, -6.3% [95% CI, -12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, -12.1% [95% CI, -19.1% to -5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951.