Search

ABSTRACT Introduction People with lived and living experience (PWLLE) and family members (F) can engage in mental health and substance use health research beyond participant roles, as advisors, co‐researchers, equal partners and research leads. However, implementing meaningful and effective engagement is complex. Methods This article profiles five research initiatives involving different lived experience engagement structures, situated in a single tertiary care teaching and research hospital. Results The profiled projects feature various study designs and stages, ranging from initial priority setting to implementation efforts. The levels of engagement range from consultation to PWLLE/F leadership. Across diverse populations, all embody high‐quality engagement and illustrate that PWLLE/F can have an important impact on a wide range of mental health and substance use health research. Conclusions Engagement can be implemented flexibly within a single research institution to meet a wide range of needs and preferences of researchers and PWLLE/F. Patient and Public Contribution Each of the research initiatives profiled was conducted with substantial lived experience engagement, as described herein. People with lived and living experience from each research initiative are also included in the authorship team and contributed to this manuscript.

IntroductionMental health Applications (MH Apps) can potentially improve access to high-quality mental health care. However, the recent rapid expansion of MH Apps has created growing concern regarding their safety and effectiveness, leading to the development of AETs (Assessment and Evaluation Tools) to help guide users. This article provides a critical, mixed methods analysis of existing AETs for MH Apps by reviewing the criteria used to evaluate MH Apps and assessing their effectiveness as evaluation tools.MethodsTo identify relevant AETs, gray and scholarly literature were located through stakeholder consultation, Internet searching via Google and a literature search of bibliographic databases Medline, APA PsycInfo, and LISTA. Materials in English that provided a tool or method to evaluate MH Apps and were published from January 1, 2000, to January 26, 2021 were considered for inclusion.ResultsThirteen relevant AETs targeted for MH Apps met the inclusion criteria. The qualitative analysis of AETs and their evaluation criteria revealed that despite purporting to focus on MH Apps, the included AETs did not contain criteria that made them more specific to MH Apps than general health applications. There appeared to be very little agreed-upon terminology in this field, and the focus of selection criteria in AETs is often IT-related, with a lesser focus on clinical issues, equity, and scientific evidence. The quality of AETs was quantitatively assessed using the AGREE II, a standardized tool for evaluating assessment guidelines. Three out of 13 AETs were deemed ‘recommended’ using the AGREE II.DiscussionThere is a need for further improvements to existing AETs. To realize the full potential of MH Apps and reduce stakeholders’ concerns, AETs must be developed within the current laws and governmental health policies, be specific to mental health, be feasible to implement and be supported by rigorous research methodology, medical education, and public awareness.

Key Clinical Message Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria is a rare disease with the incidence ranging from 0.08 to 0.57 per 100,000 person‐years. Up to 25% of cases in women are detected during pregnancy. We report two cases of successful pregnancy outcomes in patients treated with eculizumab, pointing out the importance of interdisciplinary approach in these high‐risk pregnancies.

Abstract Wound healing is a general response of the body to injury. All organs share in common three response elements to wound healing: inflammation to prevent infection and stimulate the removal of dead cells, active anti‐inflammatory signalling to turn off the inflammatory response, and a repair phase characterized by extracellular matrix scar formation. The extent of scar formed depends on the ability of endogenous cells that populate each organ to regenerate. The skin has keratinocytes that have regenerative capacity, and in general, wounds are fully re‐epithelialized. Heart, in contrast, has cardiac myocytes that have little to no regenerative capacity, and necrotic myocytes are entirely replaced by scars. Despite differences in tissue regeneration, the skin and heart share many wound‐healing properties that can be exploited to predict the cardiac response to pathology. We summarize in this review article our current understanding of how the response of the skin to a wounding event can inform us about the ability of the myocardium to respond to a myocardial infarction.

BackgroundOver the past decade, a growing body of scientific evidence has demonstrated that community engagement in research leads to more relevant research, enhances the uptake of research findings, and improves clinical outcomes. Despite the increasing need for the integration of community engagement methodologies into the scientific inquiry, doctoral and master's level competencies in the field of psychiatry often lack dedicated training or coursework on community engagement methodologies. ObjectiveA total of 13 service users, peer support specialists, caregivers of people with mental health challenges, and scientists (with specialties ranging from basic science to implementation science) aged 18 and older participated in remote training on community-based participatory research. Data were collected at baseline, 2 days, and 3 months. MethodsA total of 13 service users, peer support specialists, caregivers of people with mental health challenges, and scientists (with specialties ranging from basic science to implementation science) aged 18 and older participated in remote training on community-based participatory research. Data were collected at baseline, 2 days, and 3 months. ResultsThe pilot study demonstrated that a 3-month remote training on community-based participatory research (“Partnership Academy”) was deemed feasible and acceptable by service users, peer support specialists, caregivers of people with mental health challenges, and scientists. Improvements were found in research engagement and the quality of partnership. A marked increase in distrust in the medical system was also found. Groups submitted 4 grant applications and published 1 peer-reviewed journal at a 3-month follow-up. ConclusionsThis pre- and postpilot study demonstrated it is possible to train groups of service users, peer support specialists, caregivers of people with mental health challenges, and scientists in community-based participatory research. These findings provide preliminary evidence that a 3-month remote training on community-based participatory research (“Partnership Academy”) is feasible, acceptable, and potentially associated with improvements in research engagement as well as the quality of partnership and output, such as manuscripts and grant applications.

BackgroundMental health Applications (Mhealth Apps) can change how healthcare is delivered. However, very little is known about the efficacy of Mhealth Apps. Currently, only minimum guidance is available in Assessment and Evaluation Tools (AETs). Therefore, this project aims to understand AET developers' perspectives and end users' experiences and opinions on “how to choose a Mhealth App”.ObjectiveThe primary objectives were: (1) obtaining stakeholder's opinions and experiences of development and use of AETs for Mhealth Apps, their weaknesses and strengths, and barriers in their implementation of Mhealth Apps; (2) the experiences of App users, their analyzation and, obstacles in the use of apps; and (3) to quantify themes related to choosing a Mhealth App.MethodsThis qualitative study, used a sampling method to recruit six stakeholders (one App developer, two AET developers, an individual with lived experience of mental health illness, and two physicians) who were interviewed using a topic guide. These were examined by researchers (CT, WK, & FN) using thematic content analysis. Additionally, an anonymous online survey of 107 individuals was conducted.FindingsOur analyses revealed six main themes: (a) needs and opportunities; (b) views on Mhealth apps; (c) views & opinions on AETs; (d) implementation barriers; (e) system of evaluation and; (f) future directions. The first key concept was, all stakeholders agreed that Apps could significantly impact mental health and that end-users were unaware of mental health AETs and Apps. Secondly, due to commercial interests, end-users reliability of App evaluations requires clear conflict-free guidelines. Thirdly, AETs should be evaluated and developed through a rigorous methodology. Finally, stakeholders shared insights into future developments for AETs and Mhealth Apps. Additionally, online survey respondents chose a “health professional” as their preferred source of guidance in selecting a Mhealth app (84%) and best suited to develop guidelines (70%).ConclusionThe interviews and survey highlight the need for Mhealth Apps to be regulated and the importance of health professionals' engagement in the implementation process. Similarly, without well-defined roles for App evaluations within the health care system, it is unlikely that AETs will have wider spread use and impact without risk.

Abstract Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09–0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = − 0.10, 95% CI -0.21–0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07–0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12–0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = − 0.05, 95% CI − 0.20–0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03–0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = − 0.03, 95% CI − 0.09–0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI − 0.10–0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

IntroductionGovernments and public health authorities across many jurisdictions implemented social (physical) distancing measures to contain the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Adherence to these measures is variable and likely influenced by various factors. This study aimed to 1) identify the individual sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants of social distancing adherence, and 2) explore regional differences in social distancing adherence in the United States (U.S.) and English-speaking Canada based on each region's discrepant response to social distancing restrictions.MethodsA web-based repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted in 4,942 English-speaking participants from the four most populous U.S. states, specifically New York, California, Texas, and Florida, and Canada (www.covid19-database.com). The study was conducted at two timepoints, from May 1 to 5, 2020 (n = 1,019, Canadian participants only) and from July 6 to 10, 2020 (n = 3,923). Separate univariate models were computed for individual sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants of social distancing adherence. To determine the total variance explained, a univariate analysis including all of the determinants was performed. Regional differences in social distancing were compared between the four U.S. states and Canada, and between the U.S. as a whole and Canada.ResultsAdherence to social distancing was higher in May (mean = 4.4/5.0±0.7) compared to July (mean = 4.3/5.0±0.7) [t(4940) = 6.96, p < 0.001], likely a reflection of relaxing restrictions. There were no regional differences in adherence. Sociodemographic, COVID-19 and social distancing related, and psychological determinants explained 10, 36, and 23% of the variance of social distancing adherence, respectively. Higher perceived seriousness of COVID-19 [β (SE) = 0.39 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.22], lower risk propensity [β (SE) = −0.15 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.06], germ aversion [β (SE) = 0.12 (0.01), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.03], age [β (SE) = 0.01 (0.00), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.02], and greater social support [β (SE) = 0.03 (0.00), p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.02] had the largest effects on social distancing adherence.ConclusionPublic service initiatives to emphasize the serious consequences of infection and targeted interventions toward certain sociodemographic groups, such as younger adults and vulnerable individuals in greater need of social support, may help enhance the public's adherence to social distancing measures during subsequent waves of COVID-19 and future pandemics.

The COVID-19 Behavior Determinants Database (http://covid19-database.com) is a research project that examined the sociodemographic and psychological determinants of COVID-19 related attitudes and behaviors. It is a comprehensive web-based survey that was administered to adults ages 18 or older (total n=8070) from the United States of America (n = 5326), including the four most populous states, specifically New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and Canada (n = 2744), including all provinces, except Quebec. The survey was collected at three timepoints, May 2020 (n=1019), July 2020 (n=4027), and March 2021 (n=3024). Participants provided detailed sociodemographic information and completed a battery of psychological assessments. Participants also provided information about prior testing for COVID-19 and perceived seriousness of COVID-19 and the need for current physical (social) distancing restrictions. The database is helpful to researchers and public health policy decision-makers who are interested in investigating and identifying the determinants of COVID-19 related attitudes and behaviors in North America.

Introduction: People with lived and living experience (PWLLE) and family members (F) can engage in mental health and substance use health research beyond participant roles, as advisors, co‐researchers, equal partners and research leads. However, implementing meaningful and effective engagement is complex. Methods: This article profiles five research initiatives involving different lived experience engagement structures, situated in a single tertiary care teaching and research hospital. Results: The profiled projects feature various study designs and stages, ranging from initial priority setting to implementation efforts. The levels of engagement range from consultation to PWLLE/F leadership. Across diverse populations, all embody high‐quality engagement and illustrate that PWLLE/F can have an important impact on a wide range of mental health and substance use health research. Conclusions: Engagement can be implemented flexibly within a single research institution to meet a wide range of needs and preferences of researchers and PWLLE/F. Patient and Public Contribution: Each of the research initiatives profiled was conducted with substantial lived experience engagement, as described herein. People with lived and living experience from each research initiative are also included in the authorship team and contributed to this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]