Search

BackgroundBarriers to recruiting and retaining people with psychosis and their families in research are well-established, potentially biasing clinical research samples. Digital research tools, such as online platforms, mobile apps, and text messaging, have the potential to address barriers to research by facilitating remote participation. However, there has been limited research on leveraging these technologies to engage people with psychosis and their families in research. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the uptake of digital tools to engage patients with provisional psychosis and their families in research and their preferences for different research administration methods. MethodsThis study used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)—a secure web-based platform with built-in tools for data collection and storage—to send web-based consent forms and surveys on service engagement via text message or email to patients and families referred to early psychosis intervention services; potential participants were also approached or reminded about the study in person. We calculated completion rates and timing using remote and in-person methods and compensation preferences. ResultsA total of 447 patients with provisional psychosis and 187 of their family members agreed to receive the web-based consent form, and approximately half of the patients (216/447, 48.3%) and family members (109/187, 58.3%) consented to participate in the survey. Most patients (182/229, 79.5%) and family members (75/116, 64.7%) who completed the consent form did so remotely, with more family members (41/116, 35.3%) than patients (47/229, 20.5%) completing it in person. Of those who consented, 77.3% (167/216) of patients and 72.5% (79/109) of family members completed the survey, and most did the survey remotely. Almost all patients (418/462, 90.5%) and family members (174/190, 91.6%) requested to receive the consent form and survey by email, and only 4.1% (19/462) and 3.2% (6/190), respectively, preferred text message. Just over half of the patients (91/167, 54.5%) and family members (42/79, 53.2%) preferred to receive electronic gift cards from a coffee shop as study compensation. Most surveys were completed on weekdays between 12 PM and 6 PM. ConclusionsWhen offered the choice, most participants with psychosis and their families chose remote administration methods, suggesting that digital tools may enhance research recruitment and participation in this population, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a number of negative health related consequences, including impacts on mental health. More than 22% of Canadians reported that they had felt depressed in the last week, in response to a December 2020 national survey. Given the need to physically distance during the pandemic, and the increase in demand for mental health services, digital interventions that support mental health and wellness may be beneficial. ObjectiveThe purpose of this research was to identify digital interventions that could be used to support the mental health of the Canadian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objectives were to identify (1) the populations these interventions were developed for, inclusive of exploring areas of equity such as socioeconomic status, sex/gender, race/ethnicity and culture, and relevance to Indigenous peoples and communities; (2) the effect of the interventions; and (3) any barriers or facilitators to the use of the intervention. MethodsThis study was completed using a Cochrane Rapid Review methodology. A search of Embase, PsycInfo, Medline, and Web of Science, along with Google, Million Short, and popular mobile app libraries, was conducted. Two screeners were involved in applying inclusion criteria using Covidence software. Academic articles and mobile apps identified were screened using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields resource, the American Psychiatric Association App Evaluation Framework, and the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s guidance on app assessment and selection. ResultsA total of 31 mobile apps and 114 web-based resources (eg, telemedicine, virtual peer support groups, discussion forums, etc) that could be used to support the mental health of the Canadian population during the pandemic were identified. These resources have been listed on a publicly available website along with search tags that may help an individual make a suitable selection. Variability exists in the populations that the interventions were developed for, and little assessment has been done with regard to areas of equity. The effect of the interventions was not reported for all those identified in this synthesis; however, for those that did report the effect, it was shown that they were effective in the context that they were used. A number of barriers and facilitators to using these interventions were identified, such as access, cost, and connectivity. ConclusionsA number of digital interventions that could support population mental health in Canada during the global COVID-19 pandemic were identified, indicating that individuals have several options to choose from. These interventions vary in their purpose, approach, design, cost, and targeted user group. While some research and digital interventions addressed equity-related considerations, more research and focused attention should be given to this area.

Although rhetoric abounds about the importance of patient-, person- and relationship-centered approaches to health care, little is known about how to address the problem of dehumanization through medical and health professions education. One promising but under-theorized strategy is to co-produce education in collaboration with health service users. To this end, we co-produced a longitudinal course in psychiatry that paired people with lived experience of mental health challenges as advisors to fourth-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto. The goal of this study was to examine this novel, relationship-based course in order to understand co-produced health professions education more broadly. Using qualitative interviews with residents and advisors after the first iteration of the course, we explored how participants made meaning of the course and of what learning, if any, occurred, for whom and how. We found that the anthropological theory of liminality allowed us to understand participants' complex experiences and illuminated how this type of pedagogy may work to achieve its effects. Liminality also helped us understand why some participants resisted the course, and how we could more carefully think about co-produced, humanistic education and transformative learning.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing health inequities in vulnerable and marginalized patient populations. Continuing professional development (CPD) can be a critical driver of change to improve quality of care, health inequities, and system change. In order for CPD to address these disparities in care for patient populations most affected in the health care system, CPD programs must first address issues of equity and inclusion in their education development and delivery. Despite the need for equitable and inclusive CPD programs, there remains a paucity of tools and frameworks available in the literature to guide CPD and broader education providers on how best to develop and deliver equitable and inclusive education programs. In this article, we describe the development and application of a Health Equity and Inclusion (HEI) Framework for education and training grounded in the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate model for instructional design. Using a case example, specifically a hospital-wide trauma-informed de-escalation for safety program, we demonstrate how the HEI Framework can be applied practically to CPD programs to support equity and inclusion in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation phases of education program delivery. The case example illustrates how the HEI Framework can be used by CPD providers to respect learner diversity, improve accessibility for all learners, foster inclusion, and address biases and stereotypes. We suggest that the HEI Framework can serve as an educational resource for CPD providers and health professions educators aiming to create equitable and inclusive CPD programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery Colleges (RCs) are education-based centres providing information, networking, and skills development for managing mental health, well-being, and daily living. A central principle is co-creation involving people with lived experience of mental health/illness and/or addictions (MHA). Identified gaps are RCs evaluations and information about whether such evaluations are co-created. We describe a co-created scoping review of how RCs are evaluated in the published and grey literature. Also assessed were: the frameworks, designs, and analyses used; the themes/outcomes reported; the trustworthiness of the evidence; and whether the evaluations are co-created. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodology with one important modification: "Consultation" was re-conceptualised as "co-creator engagement" and was the first, foundational step rather than the last, optional one. Seventy-nine percent of the 43 included evaluations were peer-reviewed, 21% grey literature. These evaluations represented 33 RCs located in the UK (58%), Australia (15%), Canada (9%), Ireland (9%), the USA (6%), and Italy (3%). Our findings depict a developing field that is exploring a mix of evaluative approaches. However, few evaluations appeared to be co-created. Although most studies referenced co-design/co-production, few described how much or how meaningfully people with lived experience were involved in the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]