Search

Background: Early detection could reduce the duration of untreated psychosis. GPs are a vital part of the psychosis care pathway, but find it difficult to detect the early features. An accurate risk prediction tool, P Risk, was developed to detect these., Aim: To externally validate P Risk., Design and Setting: This retrospective cohort study used a validation dataset of 1 647 934 UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care records linked to secondary care records., Method: The same predictors (age; sex; ethnicity; social deprivation; consultations for suicidal behaviour, depression/anxiety, and substance misuse; history of consultations for suicidal behaviour; smoking history; substance misuse; prescribed medications for depression/anxiety/post-traumatic stress disorder/obsessive compulsive disorder; and total number of consultations) were used as for the development of P Risk. Predictive risk, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated for various risk thresholds. Discrimination (Harrell's C-index) and calibration were calculated. Results were compared between the development (CPRD GOLD) and validation (CPRD Aurum) datasets., Results: Psychosis risk increased with values of the P Risk prognostic index. Incidence was highest in younger age groups and, in the main, higher in males. Harrell's C was 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.78 to 0.79) in the validation dataset and 0.77 in the development dataset. A risk threshold of 1.0% gave sensitivity of 65.9% and specificity of 86.6%., Conclusion: Further testing is required, but P Risk has the potential to be used in primary care to detect future risk of psychosis., (© The Authors.)

Introduction: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use in low- and middle-income countries has adverse health consequences. We hypothesize that it is feasible to test an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counseling sessions for SLT cessation in India., Aims and Methods: We conducted an exploratory, individual parallel two group, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with baseline and end-point (3 months from randomization) assessments in urban primary health centers in Odisha, India. A total of 250 current (i.e., users in the last 3 months) SLT users or dual users (ie, smokers and SLT users) were recruited to the trial (125 in each group). Participants were randomized to either routine care, face-to-face counseling, and reminder mobile messages or routine care only. The primary outcomes were to assess the feasibility of running a full RCT including recruitment, compliance, and retention., Results: A total of seven (77.8%) out of nine primary care centers took part in the trial. Out of the 315 SLT users invited to participate, 250 provided consent and were randomized [79.4% (95% CI: 74.5, 83.7)]. Out of the 250 randomized SLT users, 238 [95% (95% CI: 91.8, 97.5)] were followed up at 3 months (117 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). Of the participants in the intervention group, 74 (63.8%) reported that they received the mobile messages., Conclusions: This exploratory trial demonstrated the feasibility of delivering and evaluating an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counseling for SLT users in Indian primary care in a full randomized trial., Implications: This study found that combining mobile messages with face-to-face counseling for smokeless tobacco users visiting primary health care settings in India is feasible in terms of recruitment of users, compliance with the intervention, and retention of study participants within the trial. The biochemically verified smokeless tobacco abstinence rate was higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. There was poor agreement between self-reported tobacco cessation and the measured salivary cotinine in smokeless tobacco users. The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention signaling the need for a larger clinical trial to test the effectiveness of the intervention., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Functional motor disorder-the motor variant of functional neurological disorder-is a disabling condition that is commonly associated with poor health outcomes. Pathophysiological models have inspired new treatment approaches such as specialist physiotherapy, although evidence from large randomised controlled trials is absent. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of a specialist physiotherapy intervention for functional motor disorder compared with treatment as usual., Methods: In this pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in England and Scotland, adults with a clinically definite diagnosis of functional motor disorder, diagnosed by a neurologist, were included. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site) using a remote web-based application to either specialist physiotherapy (a protocolised intervention of nine sessions plus follow-up) or treatment as usual (referral to local community neurological physiotherapy). Individuals working on data collection and analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the physical functioning domain of the 36-item short form health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle, using a complete case approach; participants who were unable to receive their randomised treatment due to the suspension of health-care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN56136713, and is completed., Findings: Recruitment occurred between Oct 19, 2018, and March 11, 2020, pausing during the COVID-19 lockdown, and resuming from Aug 3, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022. Of 355 participants who were enrolled, 179 were randomly assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 176 to treatment as usual. 89 participants were excluded from the primary analysis due to COVID-19 interruption to treatment (27 were assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 62 to treatment as usual). After accounting for withdrawals (n=11) and loss to follow-up (n=14), the primary analysis included data from 241 participants (138 [91%] assigned specialist physiotherapy and 103 [90%] assigned treatment as usual). Physical functioning, as assessed by SF36, did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference 3·5, 95% CI -2·3 to 9·3; p=0·23). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions. 35 serious adverse events were recorded in the specialist physiotherapy group by 24 participants (17·0%), and 24 serious adverse events were recorded in the treatment as usual group by 18 participants (17·0%); one death occurred in the specialist physiotherapy group (cause of death was recorded as suicide). All were considered unrelated to specialist physiotherapy., Interpretation: Although more participants who were assigned specialist physiotherapy self-rated their motor symptoms as improved and had better scores on subjective measures of mental health, the intervention did not result in better self-reported physical functioning at 12 months. Both the specialist and community neurological physiotherapy appeared to be a safe and a valued treatment for selected patients with functional motor disorder. Future research should continue to refine interventions for people with functional motor disorder and develop evidence-based methods to guide treatment triage decisions., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment Programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GN receives research funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR); is a founding member of the Functional Neurological Disorder Society (FNDS); and is on the advisory board for FND patient charities FND Hope UK and FND Action. LM and LHG receive research funding from the NIHR. MJE does medical expert reporting in personal injury and clinical negligence cases, including in cases of functional neurological disorder; has shares in Brain & Mind, which provides neuropsychiatric and neurological rehabilitation in the independent medical sector, including in people with functional neurological disorder; has received financial support for lectures from the International Parkinson's and Movement Disorders Society and the FNDS; receives royalties from Oxford University Press for his book The Oxford Specialist Handbook of Parkinson's Disease and Other Movement Disorder; has received honoraria for medical advice to Teva Pharmaceuticals; receives grant funding, including for studies related to functional neurological disorder, from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council; is an associate editor of the European Journal of Neurology; is a member of the international executive committee of the International Parkinson's and Movement Disorders Society and a board member of the FNDS; and is on the medical advisory boards of the charities functional neurological disorder (FND) Hope UK and Dystonia UK. JS reports honoraria from UptoDate, personal fees from Expert Witness Work and grants from National Research Scotland; runs a free self-help website, www.neurosymptoms.org, for patients with Functional Neurological Disorder; and is secretary of FNDS and on the medical advisory boards of the charities FND Hope UK and FND Action. IN has received research funding from NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, and the Wellcome Trust; and was a member of a data safety and monitoring board for a RCT of herbal medication for long COVID. MR has received research funding from Epilepsy Research UK, the NIHR; receives a salary from Elsevier as Editor-in-Chief of Seizure—European Journal of Epilepsy; has received honoraria for talks on unrelated subjects from Angelini Pharma and UCB Pharma; sits on a Lennox Gastaut Syndrome advisory board for UCB Pharma; and received payment from Precisis for chairing a data safety monitoring board of an unrelated commercial study. AC receives research funding from the NIHR, the Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office Scotland, and European Union (Etude Program); has received an honorarium from Forum for Indian Neurological Education; personal fees from expert testimony in medicolegal cases relating to FND; is president of the FNDS; and is paid Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We aimed to compare differences in suicidality and self-harm between specific lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) groups, and investigate whether minority stress factors might contribute to any associations, addressing methodological limitations of previous research., Methods: We analysed data combined from two population-based representative household surveys of English adults (N = 10,443) sampled in 2007 and 2014. Using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, gender, educational attainment, area-level deprivation, and common mental disorder, we tested the association between sexuality and three suicide-related outcomes: past-year suicidal thoughts, past-year suicide attempt, and lifetime non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH). We added bullying and discrimination (separately) to final models to explore whether these variables might mediate the associations. We tested for interactions with gender and survey year., Results: Lesbian/gay people were more likely to report past-year suicidal thoughts [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.20; 95% CI 1.08-4.50] than heterosexuals. No minority group had an increased probability of suicide attempt. Bisexual (AOR = 3.02; 95% CI = 1.78-5.11) and lesbian/gay (AOR = 3.19; 95% CI = 1.73-5.88) individuals were more likely to report lifetime NSSH than heterosexuals. There was some evidence to support a contribution of bullying in the association between lesbian/gay identity and past-year suicidal thoughts, and of each minority stress variable in the associations with NSSH. There was no interaction with gender or survey year., Conclusion: Specific LGB groups are at elevated risk of suicidal thoughts and NSSH, with a possible contribution of lifetime bullying and homophobic discrimination. These disparities show no temporal shift despite apparent increasing societal tolerance towards sexual minorities., (© 2023. The Author(s).)