Search

Background: There is limited research investigating how information about a mental health diagnosis is discussed and received. Aims: To measure community-based service users’ satisfaction and preferences toward receiving news of a serious mental health diagnosis and to assess the acceptability of a diagnostic communication protocol (SPIKES:Setting; Perception; Invitation; Knowledge; Empathy; Summarizing). Method: A survey was conducted with 101 participants. Results: Participants rated the methods clinicians use to facilitate diagnostic discussions are highly important; however, they were not wholly satisfied with their experience. Higher satisfaction was reported if participants were provided with information in a face-to-face meeting (p < 0.001), and if they received supplementary support at the time of diagnosis from additional health professionals rather than only a sole practitioner (p < 0.001). The SPIKES protocol was rated as highly acceptable, withEmpathybeing rated as the most important feature. Conclusions: This research indicates there were specific areas of communication practices which can be improved within mental health service provision, as a gap existed between participants’ desire for support and their experience. Strategies outlined in the SPIKES protocol, and others such as addressing stigma concerns, may prove useful in development of clinician training and service improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide assessment and intensive home treatment in a crisis, aiming to offer an alternative for people who would otherwise require a psychiatric inpatient admission. They are available in most areas in England. Despite some evidence for their clinical and cost-effectiveness, recurrent concerns are expressed regarding discontinuity with other services and lack of focus on preventing future relapse and readmission to acute care. Currently evidence on how to prevent readmissions to acute care is limited. Selfmanagement interventions, involving supporting service users in recognising and managing signs of their own illness and in actively planning their recovery, have some supporting evidence, but have not been tested as a means of preventing readmission to acute care in people leaving community crisis care. We thus proposed the current study to test the effectiveness of such an intervention. We selected peer support workers as the preferred staff to deliver such an intervention, as they are well-placed to model and encourage active and autonomous recovery from mental health problems. Methods and analysis The CORE (CRT Optimisation and Relapse Prevention) self-management trial compares the effectiveness of a peer-provided self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care, with treatment as usual supplemented by a booklet on self-management. The planned sample is 440 participants, including 40 participants in an internal pilot. The primary outcome measure is whether participants are readmitted to acute care over 1 year of follow-up following entry to the trial. Secondary outcomes include self-rated recovery at 4 and at 18 months following trial entry, measured using the Questionnaire on the Process of Recovery. Analysis will follow an intention to treatment principle. Random effects logistic regression modelling with adjustment for clustering by peer support worker will be used to test the primary hypothesis. Ethics and dissemination The CORE self-management trial was approved by the London Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 12/LO/0988). A Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee oversee the progress of the study. We will report on the results of the clinical trial, as well as on the characteristics of the participants and their associations with relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) may enable low cost, scalable improvements in the quality of care for adults with schizophrenia. Given the fast-growing number of studies using these tools, this review aimed to assess the efficacy and feasibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DHIs among people with schizophrenia, focusing on human support., Design: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was conducted in January 2024 to identify relevant RCTs. Random effects meta-analyses were undertaken to evaluate the effects on psychosis symptoms, cognition, and other health-related outcomes., Results: Twenty-six RCTs (n = 2481 participants) were included. Pooled recruitment and retention rates were 57.4% and 87.6%, respectively. DHIs showed no statistically significant effect sizes across all examined outcomes, including psychosis symptoms, depression, quality of life, global and social cognition, global and social functioning, and medication adherence. A third (34.6%) of DHIs were developed using co-design while the majority (70%) personalized the intervention to its users and 69.2% were deemed to be at high risk of bias. There were trends toward effects in favor of DHIs with human support for social cognition and quality of life., Conclusions: DHIs are feasible for people with schizophrenia and potentially useful for improving health outcomes, particularly when including human support. More high-quality studies are required to examine the benefits of human support within DHIs. Future research should examine the feasibility of sustained adherence and benefits from digital interventions, possibly incorporating human interaction complemented with artificial intelligence, in real-world clinical settings., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center.)

Introduction: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide assessment and intensive home treatment in a crisis, aiming to offer an alternative for people who would otherwise require a psychiatric inpatient admission. They are available in most areas in England. Despite some evidence for their clinical and cost-effectiveness, recurrent concerns are expressed regarding discontinuity with other services and lack of focus on preventing future relapse and readmission to acute care. Currently evidence on how to prevent readmissions to acute care is limited. Self-management interventions, involving supporting service users in recognising and managing signs of their own illness and in actively planning their recovery, have some supporting evidence, but have not been tested as a means of preventing readmission to acute care in people leaving community crisis care. We thus proposed the current study to test the effectiveness of such an intervention. We selected peer support workers as the preferred staff to deliver such an intervention, as they are well-placed to model and encourage active and autonomous recovery from mental health problems., Methods and Analysis: The CORE (CRT Optimisation and Relapse Prevention) self-management trial compares the effectiveness of a peer-provided self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care, with treatment as usual supplemented by a booklet on self-management. The planned sample is 440 participants, including 40 participants in an internal pilot. The primary outcome measure is whether participants are readmitted to acute care over 1 year of follow-up following entry to the trial. Secondary outcomes include self-rated recovery at 4 and at 18 months following trial entry, measured using the Questionnaire on the Process of Recovery. Analysis will follow an intention to treatment principle. Random effects logistic regression modelling with adjustment for clustering by peer support worker will be used to test the primary hypothesis., Ethics and Dissemination: The CORE self-management trial was approved by the London Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 12/LO/0988). A Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee oversee the progress of the study. We will report on the results of the clinical trial, as well as on the characteristics of the participants and their associations with relapse., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 01027104;pre-results stage., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)