Does refining an intervention based on participant feedback increase acceptability? An experimental approach.

BACKGROUND: Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested. PURPOSE: The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions.

Oral health self-care behaviours in serious mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To understand the relationship between serious mental illness and oral health self-care behaviours using meta-analytic methods and a narrative synthesis of available literature. METHOD: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines [PROSPERO reference: CRD42020176779]. Search terms pertaining to serious mental illness and oral health were entered into EMBASE, PsycINFO, Medline and CINAHL. Eligible studies included a sample of people with a serious mental illness and a quantitative measure of an oral health self-care behaviour (eg dental visits, toothbrushing). The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was utilised to appraise the quality of the literature. Studies in the meta-analysis contained a non-clinical or general population comparator sample. RESULTS: People with a serious mental illness were significantly less likely to visit the dentist (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.065, p > 0.001) or brush their teeth (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.42, p < 0.001) when compared to non-clinical comparator samples. Few studies explored other oral health self-care behaviours (eg flossing and mouth washing), but uptake was generally low in people with a serious mental illness. The study quality of included studies was variable. CONCLUSIONS: The research showed a reduced uptake of oral health self-care behaviours in people with a serious mental illness. Suboptimal oral health can negatively impact on physical, social and psychological functioning. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for low rates of oral health self-care behaviours in this population.

The association between COVID-19-related fear and reported self-harm in a national survey of people with a lifetime history of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of people living in the community who have previously self-harmed and may benefit from interventions during and after COVID-19. We therefore aimed to: (a) examine the relationship between reported self-harm and COVID-19-related fear, and (b) describe the characteristics of a community sample of people who reported a lifetime history of self-harm. METHODS: A cross-sectional national online survey of UK adults who reported a lifetime history of self-harm (n = 1029) was conducted. Data were collected May - June 2020. Main outcomes were self-reported COVID-19-related fear (based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale [FCV-19S]), lifetime history of COVID-19, and lifetime history of self-harm. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Chi-square was used to compare characteristics of our sample with available national data. RESULTS: Overall, 75.1, 40.2 and 74.3% of the total sample reported lifetime suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts and non-suicidal self-harm respectively. When adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, social grade, and exposure to death and suicide, binary logistic regression showed higher levels of perceived symptomatic (or physiological) reactions to COVID-19 were associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.07, 1.39) and suicidal attempts (OR = 3.91, 95%CI 1.18, 12.96) in the past week. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an urgent need to consider the impact of COVID-19 on people with a lifetime history of self-harm when designing interventions to help support people in reducing suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Experiencing symptomatic reactions of fear in particular is associated with self-harm. Helping to support people to develop coping plans in response to threat-related fear is likely to help people at risk of repeat self-harm during public health emergencies.

'Wasn't offered one, too poorly to ask for one' - Reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm: Qualitative patient and carer survey.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial assessment following self-harm presentations to hospital is an important aspect of care. However, many people attending hospital following self-harm do not receive an assessment. We sought to explore reasons why some patients do not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm from the perspective of patients and carers. METHODS: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients and 14 carers aged ⩾18 years from 16 mental health trusts and community organisations in the United Kingdom, via social media, to a co-designed qualitative survey. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data. RESULTS: Patients' reasons for refusing an assessment included long waiting times, previous problematic interactions with staff and feeling unsafe when in the emergency department. Two people refused an assessment because they wanted to harm themselves again. Participants reported organisational reasons for non-assessment, including clinicians not offering assessments and exclusion due to alcohol intoxication. Other patients felt they did not reach clinically determined thresholds because of misconceptions over perceived heightened fatality risk with certain self-harm methods (e.g. self-poisoning vs self-cutting). CONCLUSION: Our results provide important insights into some of the reasons why some people may not receive a psychosocial assessment following self-harm. Parallel assessments, compassionate care and specialist alcohol services in acute hospitals may help reduce the number of people who leave before an assessment. Education may help address erroneous beliefs that self-injury and self-harm repetition are not associated with greatly raised suicide risk.

Evaluating the impact of patient and carer involvement in suicide and self-harm research: A mixed-methods, longitudinal study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is becoming more commonplace in mental health research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Few studies have documented and evaluated PPI in self-harm and suicide research. Inconsistent reporting of PPI makes it difficult to discern practices that deliver quality, effective and meaningful involvement. It is important to understand and address emotional support needs of PPI members contributing to sensitive topics such as suicide and self-harm. Therefore, this study will examine the effect of PPI on self-harm and suicide research and explore patients', carers' and researchers' experiences and views in relation to the quality of PPI practice and provision of appropriate support for PPI members. METHODS: This protocol outlines the longitudinal, mixed methodological approach that will be taken. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via baseline and repeated questionnaires, document review and semi-structured interviews. Both PPI members and researchers will be invited to participate in this study. The two-year data collection period will enable evaluation of PPI throughout the entire research cycle. An integrated approach will be taken to data analysis, using inductive thematic analysis and descriptive and repeated measures analyses, to address specified study aims. DISSEMINATION: Findings from this study will inform practical guidance to support self-harm and suicide researchers in effectively involving people with experiential knowledge in their research. Analyses will offer insight into the effect of PPI throughout the research process and assess changes in PPI members' and researchers' experiences of involvement across a two-year period.

Acceptability of a Brief Web-Based Theory-Based Intervention to Prevent and Reduce Self-harm: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The volitional help sheet (VHS) for self-harm equips people with a means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Although there is some evidence of its efficacy, improving acceptability and making the intervention available in a web-based format may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to explore the acceptability of the VHS, examine for whom and under what circumstances this intervention is more or less acceptable, and develop a series of recommendations for how the VHS can be used to support people in reducing repeat self-harm. METHODS: We explored acceptability in two phases. First, our patient and public involvement partners evaluated the original VHS from a lived experience perspective, which was subsequently translated into a web-based format. Second, a representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom who had previously self-harmed were recruited via a YouGov survey (N=514) and were asked to rate the acceptability of the VHS based on the seven constructs of the TFA, namely, affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-tailed t tests, and binary logistic regression. A directed content analysis approach was used to analyze qualitative data. RESULTS: Participants in the web-based survey rated the VHS as positive (affective attitude; t457=4.72; P<.001); were confident using it (self-efficacy; t457=9.54; P<.001); felt they did not have to give up any benefits, profits, or values when using it (opportunity costs; t439=-15.51; P<.001); understood it and how it worked (intervention coherence; t464=11.90; P<.001); and were confident that it would achieve its purpose (perceived effectiveness; t466=2.04; P=.04). The TFA domain burden appeared to be an important indicator of acceptability. Lower levels of perceived burden when using the VHS tool were more prevalent among younger adults aged 18-24 years (OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.50-8.78), people of White ethnic background (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.06-8.613), and people without a long-term health condition (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.30). Perceived modifications to further improve acceptability included improved formatting (burden), the feature to add new situations and responses or amend existing ones (ethicality), and clearer instructions and further detail about the purpose of the VHS (intervention coherence). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show high levels of acceptability among some people who have previously self-harmed, particularly among younger adults, people of White ethnic backgrounds, and people without long-term health conditions. Future research should aim to improve acceptability among older adults, people from minority ethnic groups, and people with long-term health conditions.

Learning from clinicians' views of good quality practice in mental healthcare services in the context of suicide prevention: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide and non-fatal self-harm represent key patient safety events in mental healthcare services. However, additional important learning can also be derived by highlighting examples of optimal practice that help to keep patients safe. In this study, we aimed to explore clinicians' views of what constitutes good practice in mental healthcare services in the context of suicide prevention. METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) database, a consecutive case series study of suicide by people in contact with mental healthcare services. A large national sample of clinicians' responses was analysed with a hybrid thematic analysis. RESULTS: Responses (n = 2331) were submitted by clinicians across 62 mental healthcare providers. The following five themes illustrated good practice that helps to: 1) promote safer environments, 2) develop stronger relationships with patients and families, 3) provide timely access to tailored and appropriate care, 4) facilitate seamless transitions, and 5) establish a sufficiently skilled, resourced and supported staff team. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted clinicians' views on key elements of good practice in mental health services. Respondents included practice specific to mental health services that focus on enhancing patient safety via prevention of self-harm and suicide. Clinicians possess important understanding of optimal practice but there are few opportunities to share such insight on a broader scale. A further challenge is to implement optimal practice into routine, daily care to improve patient safety and reduce suicide risk.

Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest risk of suicide is not known. METHOD: We compared the predictive accuracy of the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR), ReACT Self-Harm Rule (ReACT), SAD PERSONS Scale (SPS) and Modified SAD PERSONS Scale (MSPS) in an unselected sample of patients attending hospital following self-harm. Data on 4000 episodes of self-harm presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) between 2010 and 2012 were obtained from four established monitoring systems in England. Episodes were assigned a risk category for each scale and followed up for 6 months. RESULTS: The episode-based repeat rate was 28% (1133/4000) and the incidence of suicide was 0.5% (18/3962). The MSHR and ReACT performed with high sensitivity (98% and 94% respectively) and low specificity (15% and 23%). The SPS and the MSPS performed with relatively low sensitivity (24-29% and 9-12% respectively) and high specificity (76-77% and 90%). The area under the curve was 71% for both MSHR and ReACT, 51% for SPS and 49% for MSPS. Differences in predictive accuracy by subgroup were small. The scales were less accurate at predicting suicide than repeat self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: The scales failed to accurately predict repeat self-harm and suicide. The findings support existing clinical guidance not to use risk classification scales alone to determine treatment or predict future risk.

Predictive accuracy of risk scales following self-harm: multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BackgroundScales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.AimsTo evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.MethodA multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.ResultsIn total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0-5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93-99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2-47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41-53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P<0.001).ConclusionsRisk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.

Understanding the relationship between oral health and psychosis: qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with psychosis have poor oral health compared with the general population. The interaction between oral health and psychosis is likely to be complex and have important ramifications for improving dental and mental health outcomes. However, this relationship is poorly understood and rarely studied using qualitative methods. AIMS: To explore patient perspectives on the relationship between oral health and psychosis. METHOD: The authors recruited 19 people with experiences of psychosis from community mental health teams, early intervention in psychosis services, and rehabilitation units. Participants completed a qualitative interview. Transcripts were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three themes: theme 1, psychosis creates barriers to good oral health, including a detachment from reality, the threat of unusual experiences and increased use of substances; theme 2, the effects of poor oral health in psychosis, with ramifications for self-identify and social relationships; and theme 3, systems for psychosis influence oral health, with central roles for formal and informal support networks. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosis was perceived to affect adherence to oral health self-care behaviours and overall oral health. Poor oral health negatively affected self-identity and social relationships. Clinical implications include a systemic approach to provide early intervention and prevention of the sequelae of dental disease, which lead to tooth loss and impaired oral function and aesthetics, which in turn affect mental health. Participants felt that mental health services play an important role in supporting people with oral health.

Accessing psychological therapies following self-harm: qualitative survey of patient experiences and views on improving practice.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapies following an episode of self-harm should happen quickly to ensure patients receive the care they need and to reduce the likelihood of repetition. AIMS: We sought to explore patients' subjective experience of accessing psychological therapies following self-harm and their views on improving practice. METHOD: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 128 patients and 23 carers aged 18 years or over from 16 English mental health trusts, from community organisations and via social media. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data. RESULTS: Participants reported long waiting times, multiple failed promises and rejection when trying to access psychological therapies following self-harm. Poor communication and information provision contributed to uncertainty, worsening mental health and further self-harm. Other barriers included: lack of tailored interventions, stigmatising responses, use of exclusionary thresholds to access services, and punitive approaches to treating these patients. Participant recommendations to improve access to psychological therapies included: (a) the importance of compassionate and informed staff; (b) having timely access to aftercare from well-funded and well-resourced teams; (c) continuity of care, improved communication, and support during waiting times and while navigating the referral process; (d) greater information on the availability and benefits of psychological therapies; and (e) greater choice and flexibility over interventions. CONCLUSION: Our findings identify long waiting times and inadequate service provision as barriers to high-quality and safe aftercare for patients who have self-harmed. Consistent with clinical guidelines, all patients should receive prompt aftercare and access to tailored psychological treatments following a self-harm episode.

Liaison psychiatry practitioners' views on accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients who present to hospital following self-harm: multi-site interview study.

BACKGROUND: Timely provision of aftercare following self-harm may reduce risks of repetition and premature death, but existing services are frequently reported as being inadequate. AIMS: To explore barriers and facilitators to accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients presenting to hospital following self-harm, from the perspective of liaison psychiatry practitioners. METHOD: Between March 2019 and December 2020, we interviewed 51 staff members across 32 liaison psychiatry services in England. We used thematic analyses to interpret the interview data. RESULTS: Barriers to accessing services may heighten risk of further self-harm for patients and burnout for staff. Barriers included: perceived risk, exclusionary thresholds, long waiting times, siloed working and bureaucracy. Strategies to increase access to aftercare included: (a) improving assessments and care plans via input from skilled staff working in multidisciplinary teams (e.g. including social workers and clinical psychologists); (b) supporting staff to focus on assessments as therapeutic intervention; (c) probing boundaries and involving senior staff to negotiate risk and advocate for patients; and (d) building relationships and integration across services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight practitioners' views on barriers to accessing aftercare and strategies to circumvent some of these impediments. Provision of aftercare and psychological therapies as part of the liaison psychiatry service were deemed as an essential mechanism for optimising patient safety and experience and staff well-being. To close treatment gaps and reduce inequalities, it is important to work closely with staff and patients, learn from experiences of good practice and implement change more widely across services.

Family involvement, patient safety and suicide prevention in mental healthcare: ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement has been identified as a key aspect of clinical practice that may help to prevent suicide. AIMS: To investigate how families can be effectively involved in supporting a patient accessing crisis mental health services. METHOD: A multi-site ethnographic investigation was undertaken with two crisis resolution home treatment teams in England. Data included 27 observations of clinical practice and interviews with 6 patients, 4 family members, and 13 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes described how families and carers are involved in mental healthcare. Families played a key role in keeping patients safe by reducing access to means of self-harm. They also provided useful contextual information to healthcare professionals delivering the service. However, delivering a home-based service can be challenging in the absence of a supportive family environment or because of practical problems such as the lack of suitable private spaces within the home. At an organisational level, service design and delivery can be adjusted to promote family involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that better communication and dissemination of safety and care plans, shared learning, signposting to carer groups and support for carers may facilitate better family involvement. Organisationally, offering flexible appointment times and alternative spaces for appointments may help improve services for patients.

Recent GP consultation before death by suicide in middle-aged males: a national consecutive case series study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing suicide risk in middle-aged males (40-54 years) is a national priority. People have often presented to their GP within 3 months before suicide thus highlighting an opportunity for early intervention. AIM: To describe the sociodemographic characteristics and identify antecedents in middle-aged males who recently consulted a GP before dying by suicide. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a descriptive examination of suicide in a national consecutive sample of middle-aged males in 2017 in England, Scotland, and Wales. METHOD: General population mortality data were obtained from the Office for National Statistics and National Records of Scotland. Information was collected about antecedents considered relevant to suicide from data sources. Logistic regression examined associations with final recent GP consultation. Males with lived experience were consulted during the study. RESULTS: In 2017, a quarter (n = 1516) of all suicide deaths were in middle-aged males. Data were attained on 242 males: 43% had their last GP consultation within 3 months of suicide; and a third of these males were unemployed and nearly half were living alone. Males who saw a GP recently before suicide were more likely to have had recent self-harm and work-related problems than males who had not. Having a current major physical illness, recent self-harm, presenting with a mental health problem, and recent work-related issues were associated with having a last GP consultation close to suicide. CONCLUSION: Clinical factors were identified that GPs should be alert to when assessing middle-aged males. Personalised holistic management may have a role in preventing suicide in these individuals.

Exploring the acceptability of a brief online theory-based intervention to prevent and reduce self-harm: a theoretically framed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The volitional help sheet for self-harm equips people with the means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Improving acceptability may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was developed to guide the assessment of intervention acceptability, but to date, no studies have applied the TFA to understand acceptability of interventions for self-harm. AIMS: To apply the TFA to (a) explore people's experiences of a brief intervention to reduce repeat self-harm; and (b) understand the most prominent aspects of intervention acceptability, to make recommendations for intervention refinements and successful implementation. METHOD: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had previously self-harmed. The TFA informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the TFA. RESULTS: Four TFA domains were identified that were associated with acceptability of the volitional help sheet for self-harm: affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness. People were generally positive about using the volitional help sheet (affective attitude), understood the volitional help sheet and how it worked (intervention coherence), highlighted engagement as a motivating factor in using the volitional help sheet (perceived burden) and described how the volitional help sheet could be implemented by healthcare professionals (perceived effectiveness). CONCLUSIONS: Further modifications could still be made, but it is hoped that this intervention provides a useful tool for individuals to construct their own personalised implementation intentions, and as part of longer-term support for preventing self-harm as delivered by healthcare professionals.

Challenges and adaptations to public involvement with marginalised groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: commentary with illustrative case studies in the context of patient safety research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is integral to research on patient safety in the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GMPSTRC), and is central to our patient safety research within our theme focusing on people in marginalised groups. Due to the impact of COVID-19, researchers had to adapt how they do PPI. For marginalised groups, remote working and digital adaptations (the key adaptations made in accessing and utilising health services in the United Kingdom during COVID-19) can potentially lead to further marginalisation of people already marginalised and provide new barriers to others. This editorial showcases three case examples of PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19, these are with: (1) adults with vision impairments, (2) adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/ or suicide and (3) adults with lived experience of homelessness. In these case examples, we focus on challenges relating to key aspects of PPI during the pandemic. First, setting up a PPI advisory group and secondly maintaining relationships and effective PPI with a pre-existing advisory group. We contrast these examples using more traditional ways of 'doing PPI' i.e. involving public contributors in various stages of the research cycle, with a more fully 'co-produced' approach to research when developing a new patient safety intervention. Important considerations for PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19 include: how to avoid exacerbating the digital divide when using video conferencing for PPI, the need for enhanced awareness around flexibility and resources, and the value of working closely with specialist charities to enable adaptations that are sensitive to the changed circumstances and needs of PPI contributors.

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational research Centre (GMPSTRC) carries out research to improve patient safety. We work in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design, and carry out the research. This is labelled as patient and public involvement. A key area of GMPSTRC research focuses on people who may be marginalised from healthcare and potentially suffer increased patient safety risks relative to the general population. COVID-19 impacted on research in multiple ways, notably how researchers work with members of the public. Remote working via the use of internet enabled technology has now become more commonplace, although this raises concerns about digital exclusion and how to address barriers when face-to-face PPI is not possible. This article showcases three examples of how researchers and public contributors with lived experience have adapted to working together during the COVID-19 pandemic. These case examples are: (1) setting up a public involvement group for developing an intervention to reduce medication errors for adults with vision impairments; (2) working with a pre-existing group of public contributors who are adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/or suicide; and (3) working with a charity called Groundswell who train and support researchers with lived experience of homelessness. Challenges during COVID-19 have been making video conferencing meetings accessible to members who have a range of different needs, and addressing the digital divide by allowing members flexibility in how they contribute to research. The article provides examples of how these challenges were addressed.

Risk and protective genetic variants in suicidal behaviour: association with SLC1A2, SLC1A3, 5-HTR1B &NTRK2 polymorphisms.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal behaviour is known to aggregate in families. Patients with psychiatric disorders are at higher risk for suicide attempts (SA), however protective and risk genetic variants for suicide appear to be independent of underlying psychiatric disorders. Here we investigate genetic variants in genes important for neurobiological pathways linked to suicidal behaviour and/or associated endophenotypes, for association with SA among patients with co-existing psychiatric illness. Selected gene-gene and gene-environment interactions were also tested. METHODS: DNA was obtained from bloods of 159 patients (76 suicide attempters and 83 non-attempters), who were profiled for DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric diagnosis. Twenty-eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 18 candidate genes (COMT, 5-HT2A, 5-HT1A, 5-HTR1B, TPH1, MAO-A, TPH2, DBH, CNR1, BDNF, ABCG1, GABRA5, GABRG2, GABRB2, SLC1A2, SLC1A3, NTRK2, CRHR1) were genotyped. Genotyping was performed by KBioscience. Tests of association between genetic variants and SA were conducted using Chi squared and Armitage Trend tests. Binary logistical regression analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of individual genetic variants to the prediction of SA, and to examine SNPs for potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. RESULTS: Our analysis identified 4 SNPs (rs4755404, rs2269272, rs6296 and rs1659400), which showed evidence of association with SA compared to a non-attempter control group. We provide evidence of a 3-locus gene-gene interaction, and a putative gene-environment interaction, whereby genetic variation at the NTRK2 locus may moderate the risk associated with history of childhood abuse. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that allelic variability in SLC1A2/3, 5-HTR1B and NTRK2 may be relevant to the underlying diathesis for suicidal acts.

Effects of the first COVID-19 lockdown on quality and safety in mental healthcare transitions in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the rapid implementation of changes to practice in mental health services, in particular transitions of care. Care transitions pose a particular threat to patient safety. AIMS: This study aimed to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders about the impact of temporary changes in practice and policy of mental health transitions as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on perceived healthcare quality and safety. METHOD: Thirty-four participants were interviewed about quality and safety in mental health transitions during May and June 2020 (the end of the first UK national lockdown). Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted to generate in-depth information pertaining to various stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and key informants). Results were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The qualitative data highlighted six overarching themes in relation to practice changes: (a) technology-enabled communication; (b) discharge planning and readiness; (c) community support and follow-up; (d) admissions; (e) adapting to new policy and guidelines; (f) health worker safety and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated some quality and safety concerns such as tensions between teams, reduced support in the community and increased threshold for admissions. Also, several improvement interventions previously recommended in the literature, were implemented locally. DISCUSSION: The practice of mental health transitions has transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting quality and safety. National policies concerning mental health transitions should concentrate on converting the mostly local and temporary positive changes into sustainable service quality improvements and applying systematic corrective policies to prevent exacerbations of previous quality and safety concerns.