Search

Background: The prevalence of psychosis has been shown to be disproportionately high amongst sexual and gender minority individuals. However, there is currently little consideration of the unique needs of this population in mental health treatment, with LGBTQA+ individuals facing barriers in accessing timely and non-stigmatising support for psychotic experiences. This issue deserves attention as delays to help-seeking and poor engagement with treatment predict worsened clinical and functional outcomes for people with psychosis. The present protocol describes the methodology for a scoping review which will aim to identify barriers and facilitators faced by LGBTQA+ individuals across the psychosis spectrum in help-seeking and accessing mental health support. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy will be used to search Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, LGBTQ+ Source, and grey literature. Original studies of any design, setting, and publication date will be included if they discuss barriers and facilitators to mental health treatment access and engagement for LGBTQA+ people with experiences of psychosis. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion in the review. Both reviewers will then extract the relevant data according to pre-determined criteria, and study quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists. Key data from included studies will be synthesised in narrative form according to the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. Discussion: The results of this review will provide a comprehensive account of the current and historical barriers and facilitators to mental healthcare faced by LGBTQA+ people with psychotic symptoms and experiences. It is anticipated that the findings from this review will be relevant to clinical and community services and inform future research. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Scoping review registration: This protocol is registered in Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AT6FC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evaluations published before August 2020. Full-text English-language studies reporting a full economic evaluation of a health or social care intervention aiming to reduce or prevent symptoms in people at risk of psychosis or experiencing first-episode psychosis were included. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms based on the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) handbook and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for economic evaluations. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108226). Results were summarised qualitatively. Results: Searching identified 1,628 citations (1,326 following the removal of duplications). After two stages of screening 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions were varied and included multidisciplinary care, antipsychotic medication, psychological therapy, and assertive outreach. Evidence was limited in the at-risk group with only four identified studies, though all interventions were found to be cost-effective with a high probability (> 80%). A more substantial evidence base was identified for first-episode psychosis (11 studies), with a focus on early intervention (7/11 studies) which again had positive conclusions though with greater uncertainty. Conclusions: Study findings generally concluded interventions were cost-effective. The evidence for the population who are at-risk of psychosis was limited, and though there were more studies for the population with first-episode psychosis, limitations of the evidence base (including generalisability and heterogeneity across the methods used) affect the certainty of conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous qualitative studies have found that exercise may facilitate symptomatic and functional recovery in people with long-term schizophrenia. This study examined the perceived effects of exercise as experienced by people in the early stages of psychosis, and explored which aspects of an exercise intervention facilitated or hindered their engagement. Methods: Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with early intervention service users who had participated in a 10-week exercise intervention. Interviews discussed people's incentives and barriers to exercise, short- and long-term effects, and opinions on optimal interventions. A thematic analysis was applied to determine the prevailing themes. Results: The intervention was perceived as beneficial and engaging for participants. The main themes were (a) exercise alleviating psychiatric symptoms, (b) improved self-perceptions following exercise, and (c) factors determining exercise participation, with three respective sub-themes for each. Conclusions: Participants explained how exercise had improved their mental health, improved their confidence and given them a sense of achievement. Autonomy and social support were identified as critical factors for effectively engaging people with first-episode psychosis in moderate-to-vigorous exercise. Implementing such programs in early intervention services may lead to better physical health, symptom management and social functioning among service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Young people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) are at risk of a range of negative outcomes. Specialist FEP services have been developed to provide comprehensive, multi-disciplinary treatment. However, these services are often available for a restricted period and the services that young people may be transferred to are less comprehensive. This represents a risk of drop out from treatment services in a group already considered to be at risk of disengagement. Peer support groups have been shown to improve social relationships among people with psychosis however individual peer support programs have not been tested on young people with first-episode psychosis; nor have they been tested at the point of discharge from services. Methods/design: The study is an 18-month randomised controlled trial being conducted at Orygen Youth Health Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia. The aim of the study is to test the feasibility and effects of a 6-month peer support intervention delivered to young people with FEP over the period of discharge. Participants are young people aged 15-24 who are being discharged from a specialist first-episode psychosis treatment centre. There is a 6-month recruitment period. The intervention comprises two hours of contact per fortnight during which peer support workers can assist participants to engage with their new services, or other social and community activities. Participants will be assessed at baseline and post intervention (6 months). Discussion: This paper describes the development of a randomised-controlled trial which aims to pilot a peer support program among young people who are being discharged from a specialist FEP treatment centre. If effective, the intervention could lead to benefits not only for participants over the discharge period, but for peer support workers as well. Trial registration: The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN12610000241033. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]