Search

Abstract The majority of research into the mental health benefits of blue space (outdoor places where water is a central feature) has focussed on the associations between neighbourhood exposure to these spaces and population‐level incidence of unipolar depression or anxiety disorder. There has been little exploration of the therapeutic use of blue space by those navigating bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychotic conditions. Knowledge arising from such an exploration could assist in the design and optimisation of nature‐based care for people with these conditions, as well as with self‐management. We conducted semi‐structured online and telephone interviews with 19 adults who self‐reported experience of these conditions. Interviews were conducted in the United Kingdom from August to December 2021. We describe four of the key interpretive themes identified via an in‐depth inductive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to highlight how participants sought out moments of affective sanctuary through their blue encounters. Blue spaces were described as having the potential to reset the mind, emotions and body. This was in part due to their socially undemanding nature, and ability to provide respite from a socially stressful world. Participants described developing a blue identity, whereby a sense of attachment to and shared history with these places was articulated as well as incorporating blue spaces into self‐ and emotion‐regulation practices. Finally, participants described experiences of and recommendations for a therapeutic blue intervention. The role of biodiversity in contributing to the benefits of blue spaces was implied primarily in terms of perceived soundscapes, but also through visual observations. Synthesis and applications. Blue care for people with bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychotic conditions should consider the need that some individuals have for solitude and proximity to their home when they visit blue spaces, as well as individual differences in the features of blue space interactions that provide the greatest benefit. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

ABSTRACT Introduction Oral diseases are more prevalent in people with severe mental illness (SMI) compared to those without mental illnees. A greater focus on oral health is needed to reverse unacceptable but often neglected oral health inequality in people with SMI. This provided the impetus for developing ‘The Right to Smile’ consensus statement. We aimed to develop and disseminate a consensus statement to address oral health inequality, highlighting the main areas for concern and recommending an evidence‐based 5‐year action plan to improve oral health in people with SMI. Methods The Right to Smile consensus statement was developed by experts from several professional disciplines and practice settings (mental, dental and public health) and people with lived experience, including carers. Stakeholders participated in a series of online workshops to develop a rights‐based consensus statement. Subsequent dissemination activities were conducted to maximise its reach and impact. Results The consensus statement was developed to focus on how oral health inequalities could be addressed through a set of 5‐year improvement targets for practice, policy and training. The consensus was reached on three 5‐year action plans: ‘Any assessment of physical health in people experiencing SMI must include consideration of oral health’, ‘Access to dental services for people with SMI needs to improve’ and ‘The importance of oral health for people experiencing SMI should be recognised in healthcare training, systems, and structures’. Conclusion This consensus statement urges researchers, services and policymakers to embrace a 5‐year action plan to improve oral health for people with SMI. Patient or Public Contribution The team included people with lived experience of SMI, their carers/family members and mental and dental health service providers. They were involved in every stage of developing the consensus statement, from conception to development and dissemination.

BackgroundThis is a research proposal for a case study to explore how a national organization works in partnership with people with lived experience in national mental health improvement programs. Quality improvement is considered a key solution to addressing challenges within health care, and in Scotland, there are significant efforts to use quality improvement as a means of improving health and social care delivery. In 2016, Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) established the improvement hub, whose purpose is to lead national improvement programs that use a range of approaches to support teams and services. Working in partnership with people with lived experience is recognized as a key component of such improvement work. There is, however, little understanding of how this is manifested in practice in national organizations. To address gaps in evidence and strengthen a consistent approach, a greater understanding is required to improve partnership working. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to better understand how a national organization works in partnership with people who have lived experience with improvement programs in mental health services, exploring people’s experiences of partnership working in a national organization. An exploratory case study approach will be used to address the research questions in relation to the Personality Disorder (PD) Improvement Programme: (1) How is partnership working described in the PD Improvement Programme? (2) How is partnership working manifested in practice in the PD Improvement Programme? and (3) What factors influence partnership working in the PD Improvement Programme? MethodsAn exploratory case study approach will be used in relation to the PD Improvement Programme, led by HIS. This research will explore how partnership working with people with lived experience is described and manifested in practice, outlining factors influencing partnership working. Data will be gathered from various qualitative sources, and analysis will deepen an understanding of partnership working. ResultsThis study is part of a clinical doctorate program at the University of Stirling and is unfunded. Data collection was completed in October 2023; analysis is expected to be completed and results will be published in January 2025. ConclusionsThis study will produce new knowledge on ways of working with people with lived experience and will have practical implications for all improvement-focused interventions. Although the main focus of the study is on national improvement programs, it is anticipated that this study will contribute to the understanding of how all national public service organizations work in partnership with people with lived experience of mental health care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/51779

Purpose People with severe mental ill-health (SMI) experience profound health inequalities. The Optimizing Wellbeing in Self-isolation study (OWLS) explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on people with SMI, including how and why their physical and mental health may have changed during the pandemic. Methods The OLWS study comprised two surveys and two nested qualitative studies. Of 367 people recruited to the study, 235 expressed interest in taking part in a qualitative interview. In the first qualitative study eighteen interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of participants. Results We identified six factors which influenced peoples’ health, positively and negatively: Staying Physically Active; Maintaining a Balanced and Healthy Diet; Work or Not Working; Daily Routine and Good Sleep; Staying Connected to Family, Friends and the Local Community; and Habits, Addictions and Coping with Anxiety Created by the Pandemic. Conclusions Different aspects of lifestyle are highly interconnected. For people with SMI, loss of routine and good sleep, poor diet and lack of exercise can compound each other, leading to a decline in physical and mental health. If people are supported to understand what helps them stay well, they can establish their own frameworks to draw on during difficult times.

Research literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the loss of involvement opportunities for people with lived experience during the pandemic as well as the vital role lived experience advisors play at all times, including highlighting unseen aspects of the impacts of crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, researchers from the Closing the Gap Network (CtG) at the University of York worked to expand and diversify patient and public involvement (PPI) whist working on a study exploring the impact of the pandemic and associated restrictions on those with the most severe forms of mental ill health. CtG had a strong record of patient and public involvement pre-pandemic and researchers wanted to ensure that this continued during the pandemic. This paper describes the experience of lived experience involvement during the pandemic from multiple perspectives and makes recommendations for future involvement models, accessibility and recommendations for future research.

Background: People with severe mental illness die 15–20 years earlier than the general population. Reasons why include that people with severe mental illness are more likely to smoke and be physically inactive as a result of social inequalities. Objectives: (1) Evaluate the clinical effectiveness of multiple risk behaviour interventions on behaviour change (e.g. smoking abstinence), and outcomes affected by behaviours (e.g. weight loss). (2) Compare the clinical effectiveness of interventions targeting multiple and single risk behaviours. (3) Examine the factors affecting outcomes (e.g. intervention content). (4) Assess the factors affecting experiences of interventions (e.g. barriers and facilitators). Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA) and Science Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) were searched from inception to October 2018, and an updated search was conducted in March 2020. An Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) search and an updated Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials search were undertaken in September 2020. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials targeting single or multiple health risk behaviours among people with severe mental illness were included. Qualitative evidence on factors affecting the effectiveness of risk behaviour interventions was included. Study appraisal: Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the effectiveness of multiple and single risk behaviour interventions. The mean differences were estimated for continuous outcomes; if this was not possible, standardised mean differences were calculated. Thematic syntheses of qualitative studies were conducted. Results: A total of 101 studies (67 randomised controlled trials and 34 qualitative studies) were included. Most outcomes were smoking abstinence, weight and body mass index. Just over half of studies were rated as having a high overall risk of bias. Trials focusing on smoking alone led to greater abstinence than targeting smoking and other behaviours. However, heterogeneity means that other explanations cannot be ruled out. For weight loss and body mass index, single risk behaviour (e.g. physical activity alone) and multiple risk behaviour (e.g. diet and physical activity) interventions had positive but modest benefits. For example, any risk behaviour intervention led to a 2 kg greater weight loss (–2.10 kg, 95% credible interval –3.14 to –1.06 kg) and approximately half a point (i.e. 0.5 kg/m2) greater body mass index reduction (–0.49 kg/m2, 95% credible interval –0.97 to –0.01 kg/m2) than treatment as usual. There were potential synergies for targeting multiple health behaviours for reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. No evidence was found of a deterioration in mental health for people with severe mental illness engaging in interventions to reduce health risk behaviours. Qualitative studies found that people with severe mental illness favoured interventions promoting physical and mental health together, and that took their condition into account. However, trials focused mainly on promoting physical health. Limitations: Most quantitative studies focused on weight and body mass index; few assessed behavioural outcomes. Qualitative studies often addressed different aims. Conclusions: Multiple and single risk behaviour interventions were associated with positive but modest benefits on most outcomes. Interventions seeking to promote physical health were not associated with deterioration in mental health. There was a lack of overlap between quantitative and qualitative studies. Future work: Further research is needed to investigate whether or not health behaviour changes are maintained long term; tailoring weight-loss interventions for people with severe mental illness; and in terms of methods, co-production and mixed-methods approaches in future trials. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018104724. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

AimsTo explore: how satisfied people with severe mental illness (SMI) are with the support received during the pandemic; understand any difficulties encountered when accessing both mental health and primary care services; consider ways to mitigate these difficulties; and assess the perceived need for future support from mental health services.Materials and MethodsA representative sample was drawn from a large transdiagnostic clinical cohort of people with SMI, which was recruited between April 2016 and March 2020. The sample was re-surveyed a few months after the beginning of the restrictions. Descriptive frequency statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data. The free text responses were analyzed thematically.Results367 participants responded to the survey. Two thirds were receiving support from mental health services with the rest supported in primary care or self-managing. A quarter thought they would need more mental health support in the coming year. Half had needed to used community mental health services during the pandemic and the majority had been able to get support. A minority reported that their mental health had deteriorated but they had either not got the supported they wanted or had not sought help. The biggest service change was the reduction in face-to-face appointments and increasing use of phone and video call support. Nearly half of those using mental health services found this change acceptable or even preferred it. However, acceptability was influenced by several factors, and participants were more likely to report that they had received all the support they needed, when seen in person.DiscussionAlthough most participants were satisfied with the mental health support they had received, a minority were not. This, couple with findings on future need for mental health support has implications for post pandemic demand on services. Remote care has brought benefits but also risks that it could increase inequalities in access to services.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing health inequalities and people with severe mental ill health (SMI) are one of the groups at greatest risk. In this study, we explored the effects of the pandemic and pandemic restrictions on people with SMI during the first year of the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal study in a sample of people with SMI. The inception survey was carried out between July and December 2020. Participants were then re-surveyed between January and March 2021. People were contacted by telephone and invited to take part in the study over the phone, online or by postal questionnaire. Across both waves we asked participants about their physical and mental health, health risk behaviors, well-being, loneliness, and employment status.ResultsThree hundred and sixty-seven people with SMI completed the inception survey and 249 people completed the follow up. Whilst some people reported no change in their physical (77, 31%) or mental health (60, 24%) over the course of the pandemic 53 (21%) reported a continuing decline in physical health and 52 (21%) reported a continuing decline in mental health. Participants who maintained a daily routine or reported no decline in physical health were found to be associated with no deterioration in mental health (Daily routine OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.11–4.64; no reported physical health decline OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17–0.70). Participants were less likely to be occupationally active in the first phase of the pandemic compared to before the pandemic and in the second phase of the pandemic. However, there was no one single experience of people with SMI and similar to studies in the general populations a range of different scenarios was experienced.ConclusionsWe observed a series of factors that might amplify pre-existing health inequalities. Health systems should be mindful of this, and should redouble efforts to set in place changes to practice and policy, which can mitigate these inequalities. Examples might include; raising awareness of the importance of ensuring that people with SMI receive an annual physical health check and supporting people to maintain a daily routine.

Aim/goal/purposePopulation surveys underrepresent people with severe mental ill health. This paper aims to use multiple regression analyses to explore perceived social support, loneliness and factor associations from self-report survey data collected during the Covid-19 pandemic in a sample of individuals with severe mental ill health.Design/methodology/approachWe sampled an already existing cohort of people with severe mental ill health. Researchers contacted participants by phone or by post to invite them to take part in a survey about how the pandemic restrictions had impacted health, Covid-19 experiences, perceived social support, employment and loneliness. Loneliness was measured by the three item UCLA loneliness scale.FindingsIn the pandemic sub-cohort, 367 adults with a severe mental ill health diagnosis completed a remote survey. 29-34% of participants reported being lonely. Loneliness was associated with being younger in age (adjusted OR = -.98, p = .02), living alone (adjusted OR = 2.04, p = .01), high levels of social and economic deprivation (adjusted OR = 2.49, p = .04), and lower perceived social support (B = -5.86, p < .001). Living alone was associated with lower perceived social support. Being lonely was associated with a self-reported deterioration in mental health during the pandemic (adjusted OR = 3.46, 95%CI 2.03-5.91).Practical implicationsIntervention strategies to tackle loneliness in the severe mental ill health population are needed. Further research is needed to follow-up the severe mental ill health population after pandemic restrictions are lifted to understand perceived social support and loneliness trends.OriginalityLoneliness was a substantial problem for the severe mental ill health population before the Covid-19 pandemic but there is limited evidence to understand perceived social support and loneliness trends during the pandemic.

Background: Restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to everyday reliance on digitalisation of life, including access to health care services. People with severe mental ill health (SMI—e.g., bipolar or psychosis spectrum disorders) are at greater risk for digital exclusion and it is unknown to what extent they adapted to online service delivery. This study explored use of the Internet and digital devices during the pandemic restrictions and its association with physical and mental health changes.Methods: Three hundred sixty seven adults with an SMI diagnosis completed a survey (online or offline) and provided information on access to Internet connexion and devices, internet knowledge, online activities, and barriers to using the Internet. They also self-reported changes in mental and physical health since the beginning of the pandemic restrictions.Results: During the pandemic restrictions 61.6% were limited or non-users of the Internet. The majority had access to the Internet and digital devices but around half reported knowledge deficits. Most common activities were accessing information and entertainment (88.9%), staying in touch with friends and families (84.8%), and purchasing goods (other than food) (84.3%). Most common barriers were finding the Internet “not interesting” (28.3%) or “too difficult” (27.9%), as well as “security concerns” (22.1–24.3%). Using the Internet “a lot” (vs. “just a bit or not at all”) during the pandemic was associated with younger age (18–30: Adj ORs 4.76; 31–45: 6.39; Ps < 0.001; vs. 66+), having a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (compared to psychosis; Adj OR = 3.88, P < 0.001), or reporting a decline in mental health (compared to no decline; Adj OR = 1.92, P = 0.01).Conclusion: Most people with SMI were limited or non-users of the Internet during the pandemic, which seems to be mainly attributable to lack of interest and skills, rather than lack of devices or connectivity. Older adults with psychosis should be the focus of interventions to support digital engagement in people with SMI.

Smoking rates are higher for people who use mental health services, which contributes substantially to health inequalities. Smoking can lead to worse COVID-19 outcomes, yet it remains unclear whether smoking has changed for people who use mental health services. We examined smoking patterns in a large clinical cohort of people with severe mental illness, before and during the pandemic. We found high levels of nicotine dependence and heavier patterns of smoking. Although some people had reported quitting, it is likely that smoking inequalities have become further entrenched. Mental health services should seek to mitigate this modifiable risk and source of poor health.

Introduction Although most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264). Results We included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health. Conclusions This review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population.

BackgroundPeople with severe mental ill health (SMI) experience a mortality gap of 15-20 years. COVID-19 has amplified population health inequalities, and there is concern that people with SMI will be disproportionately affected. Understanding how health risk behaviours have changed during the pandemic is important when developing strategies to mitigate future increases in health inequalities.MethodsWe sampled from an existing cohort of people with SMI. Researchers contacted participants by phone or post to invite them to take part in a survey about how the pandemic had affected them. We asked people about their health risk behaviours and how these had changed during the pandemic. We created an index of changed behaviours, comprising dietary factors, smoking, lack of exercise, and drinking patterns. By creating data linkages, we compared their responses during pandemic restrictions to responses they gave prior to the pandemic.Outcomes367 people provided health risk data. The mean age of the participants was 50.5 (range = 20 to 86, SD ± 15.69) with 51.0% male and 77.4% white British. 47.5% of participants reported taking less physical activity during the pandemic and of those who smoke 54.5% reported smoking more heavily. Self-reported deterioration in physical health was significantly associated with an increase in health risk behaviours (adjusted OR for physical health 1.59, 95%CI 1.22-2.07; adjusted OR for Age 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00).InterpretationCOVID-19 is likely to amplify health inequalities for people with SMI. Health services should target health risk behaviours for people with SMI to mitigate the immediate and long lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Detailed knowledge of the shape of the seafloor is crucial to humankind. Bathymetry data is critical for safety of navigation and is used for many other applications. In an era of ongoing environmental degradation worldwide, bathymetry data (and the knowledge derived from it) play a pivotal role in using and managing the world’s oceans in a way that is in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 – conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. However, the vast majority of our oceans is still virtually unmapped, unobserved, and unexplored. Only a small fraction of the seafloor has been systematically mapped by direct measurement. The remaining bathymetry is predicted from satellite altimeter data, providing only an approximate estimation of the shape of the seafloor. Several global and regional initiatives are underway to change this situation. This paper presents a selection of these initiatives as best practice examples for bathymetry data collection, compilation and open data sharing as well as the Nippon Foundation-GEBCO (The General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans) Seabed 2030 Project that complements and leverages these initiatives and promotes international collaboration and partnership. Several non-traditional data collection opportunities are looked at that are currently gaining momentum as well as new and innovative technologies that can increase the efficiency of collecting bathymetric data. Finally, recommendations are given toward a possible way forward into the future of seafloor mapping and toward achieving the goal of a truly global ocean bathymetry.