Search

Background: People with learning disabilities experience health and social inequalities, and research that could improve health services may not be implemented in real‐life settings. Building stakeholder networks that can share and implement research findings may address this. This paper presents a framework for building a stakeholder network that maximises the likelihood of research recommendations being implemented in practice. This was developed as part of the 'Making Positive Moves' (MPM) study, which explores the experiences of people with learning disabilities following discharge from a residential stay within a hospital inpatient setting. Methods: We reviewed the literature on existing theoretical frameworks to support the development of a model for dissemination of the MPM findings. Stakeholder categories were identified through consultation with the MPM researchers, experts by experience and the steering group and a hub and spoke model to represent all stakeholder categories was created. These categories include person moving; family of the person moving; specialist schools; social care; care providers; regulators; third sector organisations; policy organisations; academic community; and NHS professionals. After establishing the categories, we consulted with people with learning disabilities and other stakeholders and conducted online searches to create a stakeholder database. Through information gathering and direct contact with stakeholders, we assessed levels of interest, power and engagement to determine which stakeholders to prioritise in our dissemination activities. The Stakeholder Wheel was created to present the data captured within the database and engagement profiles in an illustrative way. Findings: We use two stakeholder sub‐categories, user‐led organisations and care providers, to demonstrate the methodological approach. The examples illustrate how a scoring system helped us to identify high‐priority stakeholders who we then contacted to collaborate within developing our dissemination strategy to maximise the impact of the MPM research findings. Conclusions: We developed a framework to map stakeholders for the MPM study and enable targeted dissemination to increase the impact of the research. This approach has the potential to reduce health inequalities among people with learning disabilities by increasing the awareness of and ability to implement evidence‐based recommendations in real‐life settings. The stakeholder mapping framework could be applied to research projects associated with learning disabilities to bridge the gap between research and practice and reduce health inequalities. Accessible Summary: People with learning disabilities experience unfair disadvantages relating to their health. These are known as health and social inequalities.Findings from research projects can help improve health and social care for people with learning disabilities, but only if people know about and are able to apply the research recommendations.Finding people and organisations who can make use of the research findings (known as stakeholders) is an important first step in sharing research. Working with stakeholders to think about how they use the findings to change practice can improve care and services.We have been doing this for one research project called Making Positive Moves and it has helped us plan how to share our findings. Our approach could be used by other researchers to make it more likely that their research findings will be used to make a difference in the lives of people with learning disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with learning disabilities following a long‐term stay in forensic settings may experience difficulties reintegrating in the wider community. Indirect interventions can be helpful for care providers and family members to reflect on their practices and improve the quality of life of people with learning disabilities. Although indirect interventions are being implemented in learning disability settings, research is limited. Methods: This clinical case study recounts an indirect intervention with care providers of a male with mild learning disability. Findings: We recount the referral and assessment processes, the initial hypotheses and formulation of the service users' presenting difficulties. We demonstrate how a systemically informed indirect intervention with staff can be used to improve the living conditions of a man with mild learning disability and provide reflections on working with multiple interdependent systems surrounding vulnerable individuals in a specialist learning disability setting. Conclusion: Indirect interventions with the care networks supporting an individual with a learning disability can be a useful way to conceptualise the barriers and facilitators for community integration. Indirect interventions can also offer a reflective space for staff to share their own difficulties and prevent burnout. Accessible summary: This case study explores working with staff supporting a man with mild learning disability in the community.This case study helped staff better understand the difficulties a man with mild learning disability experiences and the ways he can be supported to navigate integrating the community following long‐term stay in forensic settings.We discuss how helpful it may be to work with people around individuals with learning disabilities, such as care providers, to improve someone's quality of life.This case study also provides reflections about working with multiple systems and professionals in learning disability settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Asylum: A Memoir & Manifesto" by E. Okporo is a powerful memoir that explores the author's experiences as a gay Nigerian refugee seeking asylum in the US. The memoir sheds light on the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in countries where homosexuality is criminalized and the dangers they encounter even after seeking refuge. It also delves into the difficulties of the asylum process, racial trauma, and the impact of family separation. The book calls for a more humane and sensitive approach to asylum procedures and emphasizes the importance of research and advocacy in supporting refugees. [Extracted from the article]

This article draws on the experiences of clinical psychology training in the United Kingdom as discussed by three trainee clinical psychologists who identify as first-generation migrants. We reflect on the difficulties that accompany migration in the context of the Doctorate of Clinical Psychology (DClinPsy) and offer recommendations for aspiring clinical psychologists, fellow trainees, training courses, colleagues, and supervisors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is unclear whether inequalities in mental healthcare and mortality following the onset of psychosis exist by migrant status and region-of-origin. We investigated whether (1) mortality (including by major causes of death); (2) first admission type (inpatient or outpatient); (3) in-patient length of stay (LOS) at first diagnosis for psychotic disorder presentation, and; (4) time-to-readmission for psychotic disorder differed for refugees, non-refugee migrants, and by region-of-origin. We established a cohort of 1 335 192 people born 1984-1997 and living in Sweden from January 1, 1998, followed from their 14th birthday or arrival to Sweden, until death, emigration, or December 31, 2016. People with ICD-10 psychotic disorder (F20-33; N = 9399) were 6.7 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 5.9-7.6) times more likely to die than the general population, but this did not vary by migrant status (P = .15) or region-of-origin (P = .31). This mortality gap was most pronounced for suicide (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 12.2; 95% CI: 10.4-14.4), but persisted for deaths from other external (aHR: 5.1; 95%CI: 4.0-6.4) and natural causes (aHR: 2.3; 95%CI: 1.6-3.3). Non-refugee (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.2-1.6) and refugee migrants (aOR: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1-1.8) were more likely to receive inpatient care at first diagnosis. No differences in in-patient LOS at first diagnosis were observed by migrant status. Sub-Saharan African migrants with psychotic disorder were readmitted more quickly than their Swedish-born counterparts (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR]: 1.2; 95%CI: 1.1-1.4). Our findings highlight the need to understand the drivers of disparities in psychosis treatment and the mortality gap experienced by all people with disorder, irrespective of migrant status or region-of-origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]