Search

Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience higher rates and poorer outcomes of physical long-term conditions (LTCs). The management of SMI and LTCs is highly complex and many people with SMI rely on informal carers for support, which may lead to high levels of caregiver burden, and caregiver burnout. Caregiver burnout can result in poor health outcomes for informal carers and a reduction in the quality of care they are able to provide. Therefore, it is important to understand the caring experience to identify and address factors that contribute to burden and burnout. Methods: This paper reports a secondary qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with informal carers of people who have coexisting SMI and LTCs. We recruited 12 informal carers in England between December 2018 and April 2019. The transcripts were coded and analysed thematically. Results: We identified two overarching themes and five subthemes. The themes included ‘Fighting on all fronts: Mounting strain between demands and resources’, which described the challenge of providing care in the context of coexisting SMI and LTCs, and ‘Safekeeping: The necessity of chronic hypervigilance’, which captured how informal carers' roles were defined by managing high-risk situations, leading to hypervigilance and paternalistic approaches to care. Conclusion: The experience of informal carers for people with SMI and coexisting LTCs is marked by limited access to support and the management of significant risk, which could contribute to high caregiver burden. Further primary research is needed to understand how the experiences of the caregiver role for people with SMI and LTCs influence caregiver burden. Patient or Public Contribution: Our PPI panel DIAMONDS Voice provided guidance on this study from conception, design and development of interview guides and recruitment materials to final write-up. DIAMONDS Voice consists of service users and carers who have exper

Background: People with severe mental illness (e.g. psychosis, bipolar disorder) experience poor oral health compared to the general population as shown by more decayed, missing and filled teeth and a higher prevalence of periodontal disease. Attending dental services allows treatment of oral health problems and support for prevention. However, people with severe mental illness face multiple barriers to attending routine dental appointments and often struggle to access care. Link work interventions use non-clinical support staff to afford vulnerable populations the capacity, opportunity, and motivation to navigate use of services. The authors have co-developed with service users a link work intervention for supporting people with severe mental illness to access routine dental appointments. The Mouth Matters in Mental Health Study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention within the context of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) measuring outcomes related to the recruitment of participants, completion of assessments, and adherence to the intervention. The trial will closely monitor the safety of the intervention and trial procedures. Methods: A feasibility RCT with 1:1 allocation to two arms: treatment as usual (control) or treatment as usual plus a link work intervention (treatment). The intervention consists of six sessions with a link worker over 9 months. Participants will be adults with severe mental illness receiving clinical input from secondary care mental health service and who have not attended a planned dental appointment in the past 3 years. Assessments will take place at baseline and after 9 months. The target recruitment total is 84 participants from across three NHS Trusts. A subset of participants and key stakeholders will complete qualitative interviews to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. Discussion: The link work intervention aims to improve dental access and reduce oral hea

Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of physical long-term conditions (LTCs), poorer health outcomes, and shorter life expectancy compared with the general population. Previous research exploring SMI and diabetes highlights that people with SMI experience barriers to self-management, a key component of care in long-term conditions; however, this has not been investigated in the context of other LTCs. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of co-existing SMI and LTCs for service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Methods: A qualitative study with people with SMI and LTCs, their carers, and healthcare professionals, using semi-structured interviews, focused observations, and focus groups across the UK. Forty-one interviews and five focus groups were conducted between December 2018 and April 2019. Transcripts were coded by two authors and analysed thematically. Results: Three themes were identified, 1) the precarious nature of living with SMI, 2) the circularity of life with SMI and LTCs, and 3) the constellation of support for self-management. People with co-existing SMI and LTCs often experience substantial difficulties with self-management of their health due to the competing demands of their psychiatric symptoms and treatment, social circumstances, and access to support. Multiple long-term conditions add to the burden of self-management. Social support, alongside person-centred professional care, is a key facilitator for managing health. An integrated approach to both mental and physical healthcare was suggested to meet service user and carer needs. Conclusion: The demands of living with SMI present a substantial barrier to self-management for multiple co-existing LTCs. It is important that people with SMI can access person-centred, tailored support for their LTCs that takes into consideration individual circumstances and priorities.

Aims: Diabetes is two to three times more prevalent in people with severe mental illness, yet little is known about the challenges of managing both conditions from the perspectives of people living with the co-morbidity, their family members or healthcare staff. Our aim was to understand these challenges and to explore the circumstances that influence access to and receipt of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness. Methods: Framework analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with people with severe mental illness and diabetes, family members, and staff from UK primary care, mental health and diabetes services, selected using a maximum variation sampling strategy between April and December 2018. Results: In all, 39 adults with severe mental illness and diabetes (3 with type 1 diabetes and 36 with type 2 diabetes), nine family members and 30 healthcare staff participated. Five themes were identified: (a) Severe mental illness governs everyday life including diabetes management; (b) mood influences capacity and motivation for diabetes self-management; (c) cumulative burden of managing multiple physical conditions; (d) interacting conditions and overlapping symptoms and (e) support for everyday challenges. People living with the co-morbidity and their family members emphasised the importance of receiving support for the everyday challenges that impact diabetes management, and identified barriers to accessing this from healthcare providers. Conclusions: More intensive support for diabetes management is needed when people's severe mental illness (including symptoms of depression) or physical health deteriorates. Interventions that help people, including healthcare staff, distinguish between symptoms of diabetes and severe mental illness are also needed.

Background People with severe mental illness experience poorer health outcomes than the general population. Diabetes contributes significantly to this health gap. Objectives The objectives were to identify the determinants of diabetes and to explore variation in diabetes outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Design Under a social inequalities framework, a concurrent mixed-methods design combined analysis of linked primary care records with qualitative interviews. Setting The quantitative study was carried out in general practices in England (2000–16). The qualitative study was a community study (undertaken in the North West and in Yorkshire and the Humber). Participants The quantitative study used the longitudinal health records of 32,781 people with severe mental illness (a subset of 3448 people had diabetes) and 9551 ‘controls’ (with diabetes but no severe mental illness), matched on age, sex and practice, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD version). The qualitative study participants comprised 39 adults with diabetes and severe mental illness, nine family members and 30 health-care staff. Data sources The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD) individual patient data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics mortality data and the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Results People with severe mental illness were more likely to have diabetes if they were taking atypical antipsychotics, were living in areas of social deprivation, or were of Asian or black ethnicity. A substantial minority developed diabetes prior to severe mental illness. Compared with people with diabetes alone, people with both severe mental illness and diabetes received more frequent physical checks, maintained tighter glycaemic and blood pressure control, and had fewer recorded physical comorbidities and elective admissions, on average. However, they had more emergency admissions (incidence rate ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.96 t

Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. Methods: We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14–18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. METHODS: We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasi

© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Adolescent-onset psychosis is associated with more severe symptoms and poorer outcomes than adult-onset psychosis. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) should be offered a combination of antipsychotic medication (APs), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention (FI). The evidence for APs in treating psychosis is limited in adolescents compared to adults. Nevertheless, it indicates that APs can reduce overall symptoms in adolescents but may cause more severe side effects, including cardiovascular and metabolic effects, than in adults. CBT and FI can improve outcomes in adults, but there are no studies of psychological interventions (PI) in patients under 18 years old. Given this limited evidence base, NICE made a specific research recommendation for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of APs versus PI versus both treatments for adolescent FEP. Methods/design: The current study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting such a trial by recruiting 14-18-year-olds with a first episode of psychosis into a feasibility prospective randomised open blinded evaluation (PROBE) design, three-arm, randomised controlled trial of APs alone versus PI alone versus a combination of both treatments. We aimed to recruit 90 participants from Early Intervention and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams in seven UK sites. APs were prescribed by participants' usual psychiatrists. PI comprised standardised cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention sessions. Discussion: This is the first study to compare APs to PI in an adolescent population with FEP. Recruitment finished on 31 October 2018. The study faced difficulties with recruitment across most sites due to factors including clinician and service-user treatment preferences. Trial registration: Current controlled trial with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Registered on

© 2018 The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Background Obesity is a major challenge for people with schizophrenia.Aims We assessed whether STEPWISE, a theory-based, group structured lifestyle education programme could support weight reduction in people with schizophrenia.Method In this randomised controlled trial (study registration: ISRCTN19447796), we recruited adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or first-episode psychosis from ten mental health organisations in England. Participants were randomly allocated to the STEPWISE intervention or treatment as usual. The 12-month intervention comprised four 2.5 h weekly group sessions, followed by 2-weekly maintenance contact and group sessions at 4, 7 and 10 months. The primary outcome was weight change after 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included diet, physical activity, biomedical measures and patient-related outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a mixed-methods process evaluation was included.Results Between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016, we recruited 414 people (intervention 208, usual care 206) with 341 (84.4%) participants completing the trial. At 12 months, weight reduction did not differ between groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI-1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.963); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. STEPWISE was well-received by participants and facilitators. The healthcare perspective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £246 921 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.Conclusions Participants were successfully recruited and retained, indicating a strong interest in weight interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically nor cost-effective. Further research is needed to determine how to manage overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia.Declaration of interest R.I.G.H. received fees for lecturing, consultancy work and attendance at conferences from the following: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbec