Search

Objectives: Despite high levels of mental ill-health amongst young people (aged 15-30), this group demonstrates low help-seeking and high drop-out from mental health services (MHS). Whilst shared decision-making can assist people in receiving appropriate and effective health care, young people frequently report that they do not feel involved in treatment decisions. The current study focused on co-design of a clinical education and participant information programme for the Brain and Mind Centre Youth Model of Care. This model, which articulates a youth-focused form of highly personalised and measurement-based care, is designed to promote shared decision-making between young people and clinical service providers., Methods: We conducted workshops with 24 young people (16-31; M Age  = 21.5) who had accessed mental health services. Participants were asked what advice they would give to young people entering services, before giving advice on existing materials. Workshops were conducted and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis by two lived experience researchers and a clinical researcher., Results: Young people found it empowering to be educated on transdiagnostic models of mental illness, namely clinical staging, which gives them a better understanding of why certain treatments may be inappropriate and ineffective, and thus reduce self-blame. Similarly, young people had limited knowledge of links between mental health and other life domains and found it helpful to be educated on multidisciplinary treatment options. Measurement-based care was seen as an important method of improving shared decision-making between young people and health professionals; however, to facilitate shared decision-making, young people also wanted better information on their rights in care and more support to share their expertise in their own needs, values and treatment preferences., Conclusions: These findings will inform the delivery of the further development and implementation of a youth-specific clinical education and participant information programme for the BMC Youth Model., Patient or Public Contribution: Workshops were facilitated by researchers with lived expertise in mental ill-health (A.H. and/or C.G.) and a clinical researcher (who has expertise as an academic and a clinical psychologist). A.H. and C.G. were also involved in conceptualisation, analysis, interpretation, review and editing of this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We undertook a systematic review to assess the efficacy of exposure-based writing therapies (WTs) for trauma-exposed adults with subthreshold or clinical levels of posttraumatic stress disorder. Four databases (PsycINFO, Medline, Wiley Online, PILOTS) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exposure-based WTs. A total of 13 RCTs that reported on results from 17 WT versus control comparisons were included. The primary outcomes were posttraumatic stress symptom severity at posttreatment and/or clinical response. An overall unclear or high risk of bias was identified in 84.6% of studies. In comparison to both waitlist k = 3, Hedges' g = -0.97, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.73], and placebo writing conditions, k = 9, Hedges' g = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.08], WTs were more beneficial to participants. There was no evidence of a difference between WTs that were longer in duration compared to other psychotherapy, k = 2; pooled OR = 1.42; 95% CI [0.83, 2.43]. These findings indicate that exposure-based WTs are effective when compared to waitlist and placebo writing control conditions. The evidence needs to be considered in the context of the modest number of studies conducted to date, the high methodological heterogeneity between the studies, and the high or unclear risk of bias across many studies. Further research is needed to increase the evidence base regarding the efficacy of WTs for posttraumatic stress. Future research should also measure the mediators and predictors of outcomes to further develop protocols and understand which variants of WTs work for different populations or individuals., (© 2020 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.)

The study was to determine if breast cancer patients aged 65 and above could be given adjuvant chemotherapy safely while achieving an acceptable relative dose intensity of at least 85%. We identified all patients aged 65 and over who received adjuvant chemotherapy over the 10 year period, November 1999 to October 2009, and determined the proportion that achieved a relative dose intensity of at least 85% as well as the tolerability of their treatment. A total of 101 patients were identified, with a median age of 69 years (range 65-78).Of these, 25.7% of patients had at least one major comorbidity, 84.2% had a tumor size of 5 cm or less, 73.3% were node positive and 58.4% were hormone receptor positive. The chemotherapy regimens used were AC (Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide), FEC (Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide), CMF (Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil) and ECMF (Epirubicin followed by CMF). Seventy-nine patients (78.2%) achieved the relative dose intensity of at least 85%. With respect to toxicity, 11.9% of patients developed febrile neutropenia and 23.8% of patients required hospital admission during the treatment period, but there were no treatment-related deaths in the group. A significant proportion of patients aged 65 and above achieved the intended dose intensity of at least 85% over this 10-year period, with manageable toxicity levels. This supports the use of these regimens as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in this age group., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)