Search

BackgroundDespite increasing evidence for the effectiveness of individual psychological interventions for bipolar disorder, research on older adults is lacking. We report the first randomised controlled trial of psychological therapy designed specifically for older adults with bipolar disorder.AimsTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of recovery-focused therapy, designed in collaboration with older people living with bipolar disorder.MethodA parallel, two-armed, randomised controlled trial comparing treatment as usual with up to 14 sessions of recovery-focused therapy plus treatment as usual, for older adults with bipolar disorder.ResultsThirty-nine participants (67% female, mean age 67 years) were recruited over a 17-month period. Feasibility and acceptability of recruitment, retention (>80% observer-rated outcomes at both 24 and 48 weeks) and intervention processes were demonstrated. The majority of participants started therapy when offered, adhered to the intervention (68% attended all sessions and 89% attended six or more sessions) and reported positive benefits. Clinical assessment measures provide evidence of a signal for effectiveness on a range of outcomes including mood symptoms, time to relapse and functioning. No trial-related serious adverse events were identified.ConclusionsRecovery-focused therapy is feasible, acceptable and has the potential to improve a range of outcomes for people living with bipolar disorder in later life. A large-scale trial is warranted to provide a reliable estimate of its clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BackgroundDespite the rapid growth in the sophistication of research on bipolar disorder (BD), the field faces challenges in improving quality of life (QoL) and symptom outcomes, adapting treatments for marginalized communities, and disseminating research insights into real-world practice. Community-based participatory research (CBPR)-research that is conducted as a partnership between researchers and community members-has helped address similar gaps in other health conditions. This paper aims to improve awareness of the potential benefits of CBPR in BD research.MethodsThis paper is a product of the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Taskforce on Community Engagement which includes academic researchers, healthcare providers, people with lived experience of BD, and stakeholders from BD community agencies. Illustrative examples of CBPR in action are provided from two established centres that specialize in community engagement in BD research: the Collaborative RESearch Team to study psychosocial issues in BD (CREST.BD) in Canada, and the Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research in the United Kingdom.Results and discussionWe describe the philosophy of CBPR and then introduce four core research areas the BD community has prioritized for research: new treatment approaches, more comprehensive outcome assessments, tackling stigma, and enhanced understanding of positive outcomes. We then describe ways in which CBPR is ideal for advancing each of these research areas and provide specific examples of ways that CBPR has already been successfully applied in these areas. We end by noting potential challenges and mitigation strategies in the application of CBPR in BD research.ConclusionsWe believe that CBPR approaches have significant potential value for the BD research community. The observations and concerns of people with BD, their family members, and supports clearly represent a rich source of information. CBPR approaches provide a collaborative, equitable, empowering orientation to research that builds on the diversity of strengths amongst community stakeholders. Despite the potential merits of this approach, CBPR is as yet not widely used in the BD research field, representing a missed opportunity.

IntroductionBipolar disorder is a severe and chronic mental health problem that persists into older adulthood. The number of people living with this condition is set to rise as the UK experiences a rapid ageing of its population. To date, there has been very little research or service development with respect to psychological therapies for this group of people.Methods and analysisA parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial comparing a 14-session, 6-month Recovery-focused Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Older Adults with bipolar disorder (RfCBT-OA) plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone. Participants will be recruited in the North-West of England via primary and secondary mental health services and through self-referral. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of RfCBT-OA; therefore, a formal power calculation is not appropriate. It has been estimated that randomising 25 participants per group will be sufficient to be able to reliably determine the primary feasibility outcomes (eg, recruitment and retention rates), in line with recommendations for sample sizes for feasibility/pilot trials. Participants in both arms will complete assessments at baseline and then every 3 months, over the 12-month follow-up period. We will gain an estimate of the likely effect size of RfCBT-OA on a range of clinical outcomes and estimate parameters needed to determine the appropriate sample size for a definitive, larger trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of RfCBT-OA. Data analysis is discussed further in the Analysis section in the main paper.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the UK National Health Service (NHS) Ethics Committee process (REC ref: 15/NW/0330). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and local, participating NHS trusts.Trial registration numberISRCTN13875321; Pre-results.

Abstract Background Carers of people with psychosis are at a greater risk of physical and mental health problems compared to the general population. Yet, not all carers will experience a decline in health. This predicament has provided the rationale for research studies exploring what factors predict poor wellbeing in carers of people with psychosis. Our study builds on previous research by testing the predictive value of demographic variables on carer wellbeing within a single regression model. Methods To achieve this aim, we conducted secondary analysis on two trial data sets that were merged and recoded for the purposes of this study. Results: Contrary to our hypotheses, only carer gender and age predicted carer wellbeing; with lower levels of carer wellbeing being associated with being female or younger (aged under 50). However, the final regression model explained only 11% of the total variance. Conclusions Suggestions for future research are discussed in light of the limitations inherent in secondary analysis studies. Further research is needed where sample sizes are sufficient to explore the interactive and additive impact of other predictor variables.

Abstract Background Despite the potential of digital health interventions to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives, and substantial investment in their development, there is little evidence of successful implementation into clinical practice. We report the first implementation study of a digital health intervention: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT), into routine mental healthcare. Our main aim was to identify critical factors affecting staff uptake and use of this online self-management tool for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar. Methods A mixed-methods, theory-driven (Normalisation Process Theory), iterative multiple case study approach using qualitative analysis of interviews with staff and quantitative reporting of uptake. Carer researchers were part of the research team. Results In all, 281 staff and 159 relatives from Early Intervention teams across six catchment areas (cases) in England registered on REACT; 129 staff took part in qualitative interviews. Staff were positive about REACT helping services improve support and meet clinical targets. Implementation was hindered by: high staff caseloads and difficulties prioritising carers; perception of REACT implementation as research; technical difficulties using REACT; poor interoperability with trust computer systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and training; restricted forum populations; staff fears of risk, online trolling, and replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, in partnership with the services they aim to support, and as part of a long term national strategy to co-develop integrated technology-enabled mental healthcare. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure they have adequate IT training, appropriate governance protocols for online working, and adequate mobile technologies. Wider contextual factors including adequate funding for mental health services and prioritisation of carer support, also need to be addressed for successful implementation of carer focussed digital interventions. Trial registration Study registration: ISCTRN 16267685 .

Background: Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives: Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design: This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting: Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants: In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions: REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures: The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results: Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions: Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations: REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Relatives caring for people with severe mental health problems find information and emotional support hard to access. Online support for self-management offers a potential solution. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online supported self-management tool for relatives: the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). Design and setting: This was a primarily online (UK), single-blind, randomised controlled trial, comparing REACT plus a resource directory and treatment as usual with the resource directory and treatment as usual only, by measuring user distress and other well-being measures at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Participants: A total of 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems across the UK took part; relatives who were aged ≥ 16 years, were experiencing high levels of distress, had access to the internet and were actively seeking help were recruited. Intervention: REACT comprised 12 psychoeducation modules, peer support through a group forum, confidential messaging and a comprehensive resource directory of national support. Trained relatives moderated the forum and responded to messages. Main outcome measure: The main outcome was the level of participants’ distress, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-28 items. Results: Various online and offline strategies, including social media, directed potential participants to the website. Participants were randomised to one of two arms: REACT plus the resource directory (n = 399) or the resource directory only (n = 401). Retention at 24 weeks was 75% (REACT arm, n = 292; resource directory-only arm, n = 307). The mean scores for the General Health Questionnaire-28 items reduced substantially across both arms over 24 weeks, from 40.2 (standard deviation 14.3) to 30.5 (standard deviation 15.6), with no significant difference between arms (mean difference –1.39, 95% confidence interval –3.60 to 0.83; p = 0.22). At 12 weeks, the General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores were lower in the REACT arm than in the resource directory-only arm (–2.08, 95% confidence interval –4.14 to –0.03; p = 0.027), but this finding is likely to be of limited clinical significance. Accounting for missing data, which were associated with higher distress in the REACT arm (0.33, 95% confidence interval –0.27 to 0.93; p = 0.279), in a longitudinal model, there was no significant difference between arms over 24 weeks (–0.56, 95% confidence interval –2.34 to 1.22; p = 0.51). REACT cost £142.95 per participant to design and deliver (£62.27 for delivery only), compared with £0.84 for the resource directory only. A health economic analysis of NHS, health and Personal Social Services outcomes found that REACT has higher costs (£286.77), slightly better General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores (incremental General Health Questionnaire-28 items score adjusted for baseline, age and gender: –1.152, 95% confidence interval –3.370 to 1.065) and slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year gains than the resource directory only; none of these differences was statistically significant. The median time spent online was 50.8 minutes (interquartile range 12.4–172.1 minutes) for REACT, with no significant association with outcome. Participants reported finding REACT a safe, confidential environment (96%) and reported feeling supported by the forum (89%) and the REACT supporters (86%). No serious adverse events were reported. Limitations: The sample comprised predominantly white British females, 25% of participants were lost to follow-up and dropout in the REACT arm was not random. Conclusions: An online self-management support toolkit with a moderated group forum is acceptable to relatives and, compared with face-to-face programmes, offers inexpensive, safe delivery of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended support to engage relatives as peers in care delivery. However, currently, REACT plus the resource directory is no more effective at reducing relatives’ distress than the resource directory only. Future work: Further research in improving the effectiveness of online carer support interventions is required. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72019945. 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. 24, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Web-based interventions to support people to manage long-term health conditions are available and effective but rarely used in clinical services. The aim of this study is to identify critical factors impacting on the implementation of an online supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with recent onset psychosis or bipolar disorder into routine clinical care and to use this information to inform an implementation plan to facilitate widespread use and inform wider implementation of digital health interventions. Methods A multiple case study design within six early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services in England, will be used to test and refine theory-driven hypotheses about factors impacting on implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). Qualitative data including behavioural observation, document analysis, and in-depth interviews collected in the first two EIP services (wave 1) and analysed using framework analysis, combined with quantitative data describing levels of use by staff and relatives and impact on relatives’ distress and wellbeing, will be used to identify factors impacting on implementation. Consultation via stakeholder workshops with staff and relatives and co-facilitated by relatives in the research team will inform development of an implementation plan to address these factors, which will be evaluated and refined in the four subsequent EIP services in waves 2 and 3. Transferability of the implementation plan to non-participating services will be explored. Discussion Observation of implementation in a real world clinical setting, across carefully sampled services, in real time provides a unique opportunity to understand factors impacting on implementation likely to be generalizable to other web-based interventions, as well as informing further development of implementation theories. However, there are inherent challenges in investigating implementation without influencing the process under observation. We outline our strategies to ensure our design is transparent, flexible, and responsive to the timescales and activities happening within each service whilst also meeting the aims of the project. Trial registration ISCTRN 16267685 (09/03/2016).

Background: Use of the social media website Twitter is highly prevalent and has led to a plethora of Web-based social and health-related data available for use by researchers. As such, researchers are increasingly using data from social media to retrieve and analyze mental health-related content. However, there is limited evidence regarding why people use this emerging platform to discuss mental health problems in the first place.Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the reasons why individuals discuss mental health on the social media website Twitter. The study was the first of its kind to implement a study-specific hashtag for research; therefore, we also examined how feasible it was to circulate and analyze a study-specific hashtag for mental health research.Methods: Text mining methods using the Twitter Streaming Application Programming Interface (API) and Twitter Search API were used to collect and organize tweets from the hashtag #WhyWeTweetMH, circulated between September 2015 and November 2015. Tweets were analyzed thematically to understand the key reasons for discussing mental health using the Twitter platform.Results: Four overarching themes were derived from the 132 tweets collected: (1) sense of community; (2) raising awareness and combatting stigma; (3) safe space for expression; and (4) coping and empowerment. In addition, 11 associated subthemes were also identified.Conclusions: The themes derived from the content of the tweets highlight the perceived therapeutic benefits of Twitter through the provision of support and information and the potential for self-management strategies. The ability to use Twitter to combat stigma and raise awareness of mental health problems indicates the societal benefits that can be facilitated via the platform. The number of tweets and themes identified demonstrates the feasibility of implementing study-specific hashtags to explore research questions in the field of mental health and can be used as a basis for other health-related research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]