Experiences of Help-Seeking for Severe Mental Health Problems in Young Pakistani Women: A Preliminary Qualitative Study.

Almost three quarters of mental illnesses start by the age of 25, yet youth (18-25-year-olds) are often underrepresented in U.K. services. This is particularly true for those of ethnic minorities. In this study, we aimed to understand how young Pakistani women and their parents make decisions to seek help for severe mental health problems, and the barriers and facilitators to accessing professional help. Young Pakistani women with experience of severe mental health problems and their parents were recruited from a community sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six young people and two parents. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Pakistani culture and its interplay with British culture strongly influenced the decisions and ability of young Pakistani women and their parents to help-seek, largely through the role of stigma. Low mental health literacy, stigma, and a lack of culturally informed services were identified as the most common barriers to accessing care. These barriers fed into the internalized stigma these young women experienced which, through fear of damaged reputation and personal prejudices, posed further barriers to seeking help. Participants highlighted recommendations for both individual-level (e.g., increased education and awareness) and service-level (e.g., greater choice over care) change to facilitate accessibility of professional help. Young Pakistani women face multiple culturally related challenges to accessing care for severe mental health problems at both the individual- and service-level. Novel suggestions to address these challenges, such as including youth peer support workers in services, may facilitate more inclusive and accessible services.

Comparing interventions for early psychosis: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Background: 'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420). Findings: We identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component. Interpretation: Our findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The experience of seeking and accessing help from mental health services among young people of Eastern European backgrounds: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Most lifetime mental health problems (MHP) start before the age of 25. Yet young people-particularly those of minority backgrounds-often do not seek or access professional help. In the UK, young people of Eastern European (EE) backgrounds represent a large minority group; however, little is known about their experiences of MHP and help-seeking. In this study, we aim to understand the help-seeking process from the perspectives of EE young people. DESIGN: We used a qualitative study design with semi-structured individual interviews. The results were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. METHOD: Twelve young people (18-25 years) of EE backgrounds, living in Oxfordshire, UK, took part. All participants had experienced a severe MHP and were identified in the community. RESULTS: EE young people's experiences of MHP and help-seeking were driven by a sense of being caught between different cultures and simultaneously needing to navigate the potentially contrasting expectations of both cultures. This process was reinforced or tempered by the perceived continuing influence of young people's families, that is, families with more open views about MHP made it easier for young people to navigate through the process of help-seeking. Young people's internalised cultural and familial beliefs about MHP affected their decision-making when experiencing difficulties, their levels of trust in services, and perceived sense of resourcefulness and ability to cope. CONCLUSIONS: Recognising and responding to the cultural tension that young people of EE backgrounds may experience can help us to develop more accessible and inclusive mental health services.

Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: Participation in clinical research is associated with better patient outcomes and higher staff retention and satisfaction rates. Nevertheless, patient recruitment to mental health studies is challenging due to a reliance on clinician or patient referrals (standard approach). To empower patients and make healthcare research more equitable, we explored a novel researcher-led approach, called 'Count Me In' (CMI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 12-month implementation of CMI in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: CMI was launched in August 2021 in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England. Patients (aged 18+) learnt about CMI at their initial clinical appointment. Unless they opted out, they became contactable for research (via research informatics searches). FINDINGS: After 12 months, 368 patients opted out and 22 741 became contactable through CMI, including 2716 through the standard approach and 20 025 through electronic searches (637% increase). Of those identified via electronic searches, 738 were contacted about specific studies and 270 consented to participate. Five themes were identified based on patient and staff experiences of CMI: 'level of awareness and accessibility of CMI', 'perceptions of research and perceived engagement with CMI', 'inclusive research practice', 'engagement and incentives for research participation', and 'relationships between clinical and research settings'. CONCLUSIONS: CMI (vs standard) led to a larger and diverse patient cohort and was favoured by patients and staff. Yet a shift in the NHS research culture is needed to ensure that this diversity translates to actual research participation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Through collaboration with other NHS Trusts and services, key funders (National Institute for Health and Care Research) and new national initiatives (Office for Life Sciences Mental Health Mission), CMI has the potential to address recruitment challenges through rapid patient recruitment into time-sensitive country-wide studies.

A targeted psychological treatment for sleep problems in young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis in England (SleepWell): a parallel group, single-blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common and problematic for young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis. Sleep disruption is a contributory causal factor in the occurrence of mental health problems, including psychotic experiences, anxiety, and depression. The implication is that treating sleep problems might have additional benefits on mental health outcomes in individuals at high risk. The present study had two aims: first, to establish the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial to treat sleep problems with the aim of reducing psychotic experiences in young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis; and second, to provide proof of concept of the clinical efficacy of the treatment. METHODS: We did a parallel group, single-blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial in two National Health Service trusts in England. Eligible participants were aged 14-25 years, a patient of mental health services, assessed as being at ultra-high risk of psychosis on the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States, and having current sleep problems (score of ≥15 on the self-report Insomnia Severity Index [ISI]). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a targeted psychological therapy for sleep problems (SleepWell) plus usual care or usual care alone via an automated online system, with non-deterministic minimisation that balanced participants for ISI score and referring service. The SleepWell therapy was delivered on an individual basis in approximately eight 1-h sessions over 12 weeks. Assessments were done at 0, 3, and 9 months, with trial assessors masked to treatment allocation. The key feasibility outcomes were the numbers of patients identified, recruited, and retained, treatment uptake, and data completion. Treatment acceptability was measured with the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile (AARP). In preliminary clinical assessments, the primary clinical outcome was insomnia at 3 and 9 months assessed with the ISI, reported by randomised group (intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. The trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN, 85601537, and is completed. FINDINGS: From Nov 18, 2020, to Jan 26, 2022, 67 young people were screened, of whom 40 (60%) at ultra-high risk of psychosis were recruited. Mean age was 16·9 years (SD 2·5; range 14-23), and most participants identified as female (n=19 [48%]) or male (n=19 [48%]) and as White (n=32 [80%]). 21 participants were randomly assigned to SleepWell therapy plus usual care and 19 to usual care alone. All participants provided data on at least one follow-up visit. 39 (98%) of 40 participants completed the primary outcome assessment at 3 and 9 months. 20 (95%) of 21 participants assigned to SleepWell therapy received the prespecified minimum treatment dose of at least four sessions. The median treatment acceptability score on the AARP was 48 (IQR 46 to 48; n=17; maximum possible score 48). At the post-intervention follow-up (3 months), compared with the usual care alone group, the SleepWell therapy group had a reduction in insomnia severity (ISI adjusted mean difference -8·12 [95% CI -11·60 to -4·63]; Cohen's d=-2·67 [95% CI -3·81 to -1·52]), which was sustained at 9 months (ISI adjusted mean difference -5·83 [-9·31 to -2·35]; Cohen's d=-1·91 [-3·06 to -0·77]). Among the 40 participants, eight adverse events were reported in six participants (two [11%] participants in the usual care group and four [19%] participants in the SleepWell therapy group). One serious adverse event involving hospital admission for a physical health problem was reported in the SleepWell therapy group, and one patient in the usual care alone group transitioned to psychosis. None of these events were classed as being related to trial treatment or procedures. INTERPRETATION: A randomised controlled trial of a targeted psychological sleep therapy for young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis is feasible. Patients can be retained in the trial and assessments done by masked assessors. Uptake of the sleep therapy was high, and we found preliminary evidence of sustained reductions in sleep problems. A definitive multicentre trial is now needed. FUNDING: NIHR Research for Patient Benefit and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Improving usability of Electronic Health Records in a UK Mental Health setting: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can help clinicians to plan, document and deliver care for patients in healthcare services. When used consistently, EHRs can advance patient safety and quality, and reduce clinician's workload. However, usability problems can make it difficult for clinicians to use EHRs effectively, which can negatively impact both healthcare professionals and patients. OBJECTIVE: To improve usability of EHRs within a mental health service in the UK. METHODS: This was a feasibility study conducted with two mental health teams. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Focus group discussions with clinicians identified existing usability problems in EHRs and changes were made to address these problems. Updated EHR assessment forms were evaluated by comparing the following measures pre and post changes: (1) usability testing to monitor time spent completing and duplicating patient information in EHRs, (2) clinician's experience of using EHRs, and (3) proportion of completed EHR assessment forms. RESULTS: Usability testing with clinicians (n = 3) showed that the time taken to complete EHR assessment forms and time spent duplicating patient information decreased. Clinician's experience of completing EHR assessment forms also significantly improved post changes compared to baseline (n = 71; p < 0.005). There was a significant increase in completion of most EHR forms by both teams after EHR usability improvements (all at p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Usability improvements to EHRs can reduce the time taken to complete forms, advance clinician's experience and increase usage of EHRs. It is important to engage healthcare professionals in the usability improvement process of EHRs in mental health services.

Interventions to reduce self-harm on in-patient wards: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Incidents of self-harm are common on psychiatric wards. There are a wide variety of therapeutic, social and environmental interventions that have shown some promise in reducing self-harm in in-patient settings, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate means of reducing and managing self-harm during in-patient admissions. AIMS: To review interventions used to reduce self-harm and suicide attempts on adolescent and adult psychiatric in-patient wards. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted between 14 March 2019 and 25 January 2021 using PsycINFO and Medline (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019129046). A total of 23 papers were identified for full review. RESULTS: Interventions fell into two categories, therapeutic interventions given to individual patients and organisational interventions aimed at improving patient-staff communication and the overall ward milieu. Dialectical behaviour therapy was the most frequently implemented and effective therapeutic intervention, with seven of eight studies showing some benefit. Three of the six ward-based interventions reduced self-harm. Two studies that used a combined therapeutic and ward-based approach significantly reduced self-harm on the wards. The quality of the studies was highly variable, and some interventions were poorly described. There was no indication of harmful impact of any of the approaches reported in this review. CONCLUSIONS: A number of approaches show some promise in reducing self-harm, but the evidence is not strong enough to recommend any particular approach. Current evidence remains weak overall but provides a foundation for a more robust programme of research aimed at providing a more substantial evidence base for this neglected problem on wards.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial. SETTING: Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small. LIMITATIONS: Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433. 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. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosis is a mental health problem that can involve hearing, seeing or believing things that others do not. Although many young people who experience psychosis recover well from their first episode of psychosis, others can have more serious, longer-lasting problems. There has not been a large amount of research into the treatment of psychosis in young people; therefore, it is important to test different treatments against each other in clinical trials. 'Feasibility' trials, such as the one we carried out [Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS)], test whether or not it is possible to run larger trials. MAPS was a small trial that was run in seven locations in the UK. People who were aged 14­18 years and experiencing psychosis were able to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive psychological treatment (cognitive­behavioural therapy and optional family therapy), antipsychotic medication or a combination of both. All of the participants met with a trial research assistant three times for assessments about well-being and symptoms. Some clinicians, participants and family members were interviewed about their opinions of the trial and treatments. The trial also had patient and public involvement; service user researchers were involved in design, interview data collection, analysis and report writing. Sixty-one young people took part in MAPS, which was around 68% of our target number. In total, 84% completed the assessments with research assistants. The results showed that, overall, all treatments were acceptable to young people and their family members. However, a higher percentage of young people actually received the 'minimum dose' of psychological treatment than the 'minimum dose' of antipsychotic medication (82% vs. 65%). Results showed that it was possible to run a larger trial such as this. However, some changes would be required to run a larger trial, such as location (focusing on urban areas with well established early intervention in psychosis teams), increasing involvement of psychiatrists and increasing the age limit for participation to 25 years.

Building improvement capability in frontline staff: a UK perspective.

This paper gives a narrative account of how the Oxford Healthcare Improvement Centre has embedded continuous quality improvement (CQI) across both mental health and community services in Oxford, UK. The aim of the centre is to develop capability across healthcare services, with frontline staff leading CQI independently. The paper discusses the various methods employed to achieve this aim, including the provision of training, mentoring and support to those undertaking improvement work, alongside developing the required governance for CQI.

Treating sleep problems in young people at ultra-high-risk of psychosis: study protocol for a single-blind parallel group randomised controlled feasibility trial (SleepWell).

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions, targeting key contributory causal factors, are needed to prevent the emergence of severe mental health problems in young people. Insomnia is a common clinical issue that is problematic in its own right but that also leads to the development and persistence of psychotic experiences. The implication is that treating sleep problems may prevent the onset of psychosis. We collected initial case series data with 12 young people at ultra-high-risk of psychosis. Post-intervention, there were improvements in sleep, depression and psychotic experiences. Now we test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, with a clinical aim to treat sleep problems and hence reduce depression, psychotic experiences, and prevent transition to psychosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted. Forty patients aged 14 to 25 years who are at ultra-high-risk of psychosis and have sleep disturbance will be recruited from National Health Service (NHS) mental health services. Participants will be randomised to receive either a novel, targeted, youth-focussed sleep intervention in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Assessor-blinded assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3 months (post-intervention) and 9 months (follow-up). The eight-session psychological intervention will target the key mechanisms which disrupt sleep: circadian rhythm irregularities, low sleep pressure, and hyperarousal. To gain an in-depth understanding of participants' views on the acceptability of the intervention and study procedures, 16 participants (n=10 intervention, n=6 control) will take part in qualitative interviews. Analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, and treatment uptake rates) and provide initial CI estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews will assess the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and lay networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85601537.

Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. METHODS: We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. FINDINGS: Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. INTERPRETATION: This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Systematic review of interventions to improve constant observation on adult inpatient psychiatric wards.

Constant observation is frequently conducted on inpatient psychiatric units to manage patients at risk of harming themselves or others. Despite its widespread use, there is little evidence of the efficacy of the practice or of its impact on patients and nursing staff. Unnecessary use of this practice can be restrictive and distressing for all involved and can cause considerable strain on healthcare resources. We sought to review interventions aiming to improve the quality and safety of constant observation or to reduce unnecessary use of this restrictive practice on adult inpatient psychiatric wards. A systematic search conducted in December 2018 using PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar identified 24 studies with interventions related to constant observation. Only 16 studies evaluated a total of 13 interventions. The most common intervention components were changes to team, education and training for staff, changes to record keeping and assessment, and involving patients in care. A range of outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Over half of the interventions showed some positive impact on constant observation. One study recorded patient feedback. All interventions were targeted towards mental health nurses. Overall, there is no consensus on how best to improve the safety and quality of constant observations or reduce its unnecessary use. Studies vary widely in design, intervention and outcome measures. Existing research does however suggest that teamwork interventions can improve the patient experience of constant observation and safely reduce their degree and frequency. Priorities for future research on constant observations are highlighted.

Applying the triple bottom line of sustainability to healthcare research-a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: The triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability is an important emerging conceptual framework which considers the combined economic, environmental and social impacts of an activity. Despite its clear relevance to the healthcare context, it has not yet been applied to the evaluation of a healthcare intervention. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether doing so is feasible and useful. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of a 12-month randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community based mental health care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic psychotic illnesses (n = 333). INTERVENTION(S): Community treatment orders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Financial and environmental (CO2 equivalent) costs of care, obtained from healthcare service use data, were calculated using publicly available standard costs; social sustainability was assessed using standardized social outcome measures included in the trial data. RESULTS: Standardized costing and CO2e emissions figures were successfully obtained from publicly available data, and social outcomes were available directly from the trial data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that TBL assessment can be retrospectively calculated for a healthcare intervention to provide a more complete assessment of the true costs of an intervention. A basic methodology was advanced to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, although considerable further conceptual and methodological work is needed to develop a generalizable methodology that enables prospective inclusion of a TBL assessment in healthcare evaluations. If achieved, this would represent a significant milestone in the development of more sustainable healthcare services. If increasing the sustainability of healthcare is a priority, then the TBL approach may be a promising way forward.

Evaluating sustainability: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Oxfordshire therapeutic community.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic communities (TCs) could reduce the health care use of people with personality disorder (Davies S, Campling P and Ryan K, Psychiatrist 23:79-83, 1999; Barr W, Kirkcaldy A, Horne A, Hodge S, Hellin K and Göpfert M, J Ment Health 19:412-421, 2010) and in turn reduce the financial and environmental costs of services. Our hypothesis is that 3 years following entry to a TC service, patients have reduced subsequent health care use and associated reductions in financial costs and carbon footprint. METHODS: A retrospective 4-year cohort study examined changes in health care use following entry to the Oxfordshire TC service. Comparative analysis was undertaken on a treated (n = 40) and a control group (referred but who declined treatment; n = 45). Financial costs and carbon footprint of health care use were calculated using national tariffs and standard carbon conversion factors. Mean changes in these outcomes were compared over 1, 2 and 3 years and adjusted for costs and carbon footprints in the year prior to joining the TC service. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, the group receiving TC care had greater reductions in financial costs and carbon footprint associated with A&E attendances (p = 0.04) and crisis mental health appointments (p = 0.04) than the control group. There were significantly greater reductions in carbon footprint for all secondary health care use, both physical and mental health care, after 3 years (p = 0.04) in the TC group. CONCLUSIONS: TC services may have the potential to reduce the financial cost and carbon footprint of health care.

Cost and carbon burden of long-acting injections: a sustainable evaluation.

Aims and method This study explores the economic cost and carbon footprint associated with current patterns of prescribing long-term flupentixol decanoate long-acting injections. We conducted an analysis of prescription data from a mental health trust followed by economic and carbon cost projections using local and national data. Results A reduction of £300 000 could be achieved across England by improving prescribing behaviour, which equates to £250 per patient per year and 170 000 kg CO2e. These savings are unlikely to be released as cash from the service, but will lead to higher-value service provision at the same or lower cost. Most of these carbon emissions are attributable to the carbon footprint of the appointment - 88 000 kg CO2e (including energy use and materials used) and the overprescribing of medication - 66 000 kg CO2e. Clinical implications Psychiatrists need to review their prescribing practice of long-acting injections to reduce their impact on the National Health Service financial budget and the environment.

Interconnected or disconnected? Promotion of mental health and prevention of mental disorder in the digital age.

To date there have been few peer-reviewed studies on the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of digital technologies for mental health promotion and disorder prevention. Any evaluation of these evolving technologies is complicated by a lack of understanding about the specific risks and possible benefits of the many forms of internet use on mental health. To adequately meet the mental health needs of today's society, psychiatry must engage in rigorous assessment of the impact of digital technologies.

Social sustainability and mental health: a threat to evidence-based practice?

The availability and use of mental health treatments are influenced by many different factors. Prominent among these are scientific evidence, cost, ethics and politics. However, the social sustainability of treatments can also have a considerable influence on their use.

An international perspective on the acceptability and sustainability of electroconvulsive therapy.

There is robust evidence that electroconvulsive therapy is an effective treatment for some mental illnesses. Despite this, its use remains controversial and is declining in some countries, with a consequent loss of skills and knowledge. This, and the view of it as a 'treatment of last resort', may undermine its sustainability.

Primary-care-based social prescribing for mental health: an analysis of financial and environmental sustainability.

UNLABELLED: Aim To assess the effects of a social prescribing service development on healthcare use and the subsequent economic and environmental costs. BACKGROUND: Social prescribing services for mental healthcare create links with support in the community for people using primary care. Social prescribing services may reduce future healthcare use, and therefore reduce the financial and environmental costs of healthcare, by providing structured psychosocial support. The National Health Service (NHS) is required to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050 according to the Climate Change Act (2008). This study is the first of its kind to analyse both the financial and environmental impacts associated with healthcare use following social prescribing. The value of this observational study lies in its novel methodology of analysing the carbon footprint of a service at the primary-care level. METHOD: An observational study was carried out to assess the impact of the service on the financial and environmental impacts of healthcare use. GP appointments, psychotropic medications and secondary-care referrals were measured. Findings Results demonstrate no statistical difference in the financial and carbon costs of healthcare use between groups. Social prescribing showed a trend towards reduced healthcare use, mainly due to a reduction in secondary-care referrals compared with controls. The associations found did not achieve significance due to the small sample size leading to a large degree of uncertainty regarding differences. This study demonstrates that these services are potentially able to pay for themselves through reducing future healthcare costs and are effective, low-carbon interventions, when compared with cognitive behavioral therapy or antidepressants. This is an important finding in light of Government targets for the NHS to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. Larger studies are required to investigate the potentials of social prescribing services further.