Search

Background: We compared the quality of ethnicity coding within the Public Health Scotland Ethnicity Look-up (PHS-EL) dataset, and other National Health Service datasets, with the 2011 Scottish Census., Methods: Measures of quality included the level of missingness and misclassification. We examined the impact of misclassification using Cox proportional hazards to compare the risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (hospitalization & death) by ethnic group., Results: Misclassification within PHS-EL was higher for all minority ethnic groups [12.5 to 69.1%] compared with the White Scottish majority [5.1%] and highest in the White Gypsy/Traveller group [69.1%]. Missingness in PHS-EL was highest among the White Other British group [39%] and lowest among the Pakistani group [17%]. PHS-EL data often underestimated severe COVID-19 risk compared with Census data. e.g. in the White Gypsy/Traveller group the Hazard Ratio (HR) was 1.68 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.03, 2.74] compared with the White Scottish majority using Census ethnicity data and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.10, 5.15] using PHS-EL data; and HR was 2.03 [95% CI: 1.20, 3.44] in the Census for the Bangladeshi group versus 1.45 [95% CI: 0.75, 2.78] in PHS-EL., Conclusions: Poor quality ethnicity coding in health records can bias estimates, thereby threatening monitoring and understanding ethnic inequalities in health., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.)

Objectives: We undertook a national analysis to characterise and identify risk factors for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) resulting in hospitalisation during the winter period in Scotland., Design: A population-based retrospective cohort analysis., Setting: Scotland., Participants: The study involved 5.4 million residents in Scotland., Main Outcome Measures: Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk factors and ARI hospitalisation., Results: Between 1 September 2022 and 31 January 2023, there were 22,284 (10.9% of 203,549 with any emergency hospitalisation) ARI hospitalisations (1759 in children and 20,525 in adults) in Scotland. Compared with the reference group of children aged 6-17 years, the risk of ARI hospitalisation was higher in children aged 3-5 years (aHR = 4.55; 95% CI: 4.11-5.04). Compared with those aged 25-29 years, the risk of ARI hospitalisation was highest among the oldest adults aged ≥80 years (aHR = 7.86; 95% CI: 7.06-8.76). Adults from more deprived areas (most deprived vs. least deprived, aHR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.57-1.72), with existing health conditions (≥5 vs. 0 health conditions, aHR = 4.84; 95% CI: 4.53-5.18) or with history of all-cause emergency admissions (≥6 vs. 0 previous emergency admissions, aHR = 7.53; 95% CI: 5.48-10.35) were at a higher risk of ARI hospitalisations. The risk increased by the number of existing health conditions and previous emergency admission. Similar associations were seen in children., Conclusions: Younger children, older adults, those from more deprived backgrounds and individuals with greater numbers of pre-existing conditions and previous emergency admission were at increased risk for winter hospitalisations for ARI.

Introduction: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense-making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health., Methods: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis., Results: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender-based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far-reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards-addressing long-standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems., Conclusion: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health., Patient or Public Contribution: This study was peer-led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This study aims to estimate ethnic inequalities in risk for positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths over time in Scotland., Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study where the 2011 Scottish Census was linked to health records. We included all individuals ≥ 16 years living in Scotland on 1 March 2020. The study period was from 1 March 2020 to 17 April 2022. Self-reported ethnic group was taken from the census and Cox proportional hazard models estimated HRs for positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, hospitalisations and deaths, adjusted for age, sex and health board. We also conducted separate analyses for each of the four waves of COVID-19 to assess changes in risk over time., Findings: Of the 4 358 339 individuals analysed, 1 093 234 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, 37 437 hospitalisations and 14 158 deaths occurred. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death among ethnic minority groups was often higher for White Gypsy/Traveller (HR 2.21, 95% CI (1.61 to 3.06)) and Pakistani 2.09 (1.90 to 2.29) groups compared with the white Scottish group. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death following confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test was particularly higher for White Gypsy/Traveller 2.55 (1.81-3.58), Pakistani 1.75 (1.59-1.73) and African 1.61 (1.28-2.03) individuals relative to white Scottish individuals. However, the risk of COVID-19-related death following hospitalisation did not differ. The risk of COVID-19 outcomes for ethnic minority groups was higher in the first three waves compared with the fourth wave., Interpretation: Most ethnic minority groups were at increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland, especially White Gypsy/Traveller and Pakistani groups. Ethnic inequalities persisted following community infection but not following hospitalisation, suggesting differences in hospital treatment did not substantially contribute to ethnic inequalities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SVK was cochair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19 and a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Antipsychotics are a core treatment for psychosis, but the evidence for gradual dose reductions guided by clinicians is under-developed. The RADAR randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared antipsychotic reduction and possible discontinuation with maintenance treatment for people with recurrent psychotic disorders. The current study explored participants' experiences of antipsychotic reduction or discontinuation within this trial., Methods: This qualitative study was embedded within the RADAR RCT (April 2017-March 2022) that recruited 253 participants from specialist community mental health services in 19 public healthcare localities in England. Participants were adults with recurrent non affective psychosis who were taking antipsychotic medication. Semi-structured interviews, lasting 30-90 min, were conducted after the trial final 24-month follow-up with 26 people who reduced and/or discontinued antipsychotics within the trial, sampled purposively for diversity in sociodemographic characteristics, trial variables, and pre-trial medication and clinical factors. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and findings are reported qualitatively., Findings: Most participants reported reduced adverse effects of antipsychotics with dose reductions, primarily in mental clouding, emotional blunting and sedation, and some positive impacts on social functioning and sense of self. Over half experienced deteriorations in mental health, including psychotic symptoms and intolerable levels of emotional intensity. Nine had a psychotic relapse. The trial context in which medication reduction was explicitly part of clinical care provided various learning opportunities. Some participants were highly engaged with reduction processes, and despite difficulties including relapses, developed novel perspectives on medication, dose optimisation, and how to manage their mental health. Others were more ambivalent about reduction or experienced less overall impact., Interpretation: Experiences of antipsychotic reductions over two years were dynamic and diverse, shaped by variations in dose reduction profiles, reduction effects, personal motivation and engagement levels, and relationships with prescribers. There are relapse risks and challenges, but some people experience medication reduction done with clinical guidance as empowering. Clinicians can use findings to inform and work flexibly with service users to establish optimal antipsychotic doses., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: NM has grants from NIHR, Economic and Social Research Council, and North East London NHS Foundation Trust. RC is an unpaid Board Member of the International Institute for Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal (IIPDW), has undertaken paid work for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence, and is a paid advisory board member for the PARTANE Study. MH is co-applicant on grants from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) in Australia. He has received consulting fees from Outro Health, a digital clinic aimed to support people to stop unnecessary antidepressants; and lecture fees from NHS Trusts for grand rounds presentations, Salomon’s University and University of Washington. He sits on the DSMB of the RELEASE trial in Australia and is a co-founder of Outro Health. He is a member of the Critical Psychiatry Network and an Associate of the International Institute of Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal (both unpaid roles). JM has grants from NIHR and is a co-applicant on grants from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) in Australia. She receives royalties from six books about psychiatric drugs, and has received lecture fees from Alberta Psychiatric Association, British Psychological Association, Universite de Sherbrooke, Case Western Reserve University and University of Basal. She is co-chairperson of the Critical Psychiatry Network and a board member of the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry (both unpaid roles). All other authors (ML, SJ, JA-R, JS and SP) declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background : There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods : The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions : This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Boland M et al.)

Background: More than half of people who use antipsychotic medication for psychosis report having sexual dysfunction. The REMEDY trial aimed to find out if switching antipsychotic medication provides an effective way to reduce sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis. We set out to recruit 216 participants over a two-year period, but recruitment was stopped after an extended 12-month pilot phase, during which we recruited only 10 participants. As part of a nested process evaluation, we conducted qualitative interviews with front-line clinicians to examine barriers to recruitment to the trial., Methods: We developed a semi-structured interview schedule to explore staff views on factors that influenced whether they referred potential participants to the study. We interviewed a purposive sample of 51 staff from four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, ensuring a range of different backgrounds, seniority, and levels of involvement in the trial. Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed for verbatim, and data were analysed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis., Results: Nine interconnected themes were generated. Six themes concerned barriers to recruitment; including; prioritising patients' mental stability, mutual discomfort and embarrassment about discussing a "taboo" subject, and concerns about unintended consequences of asking people with psychosis about their sexual functioning. Three themes, including the quality of treatment relationships and strategies for opening dialogue suggested ways to improve recognition of these "hidden" side effects., Conclusion: The identification and management of sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis are not priorities for mental health services in England at this time. Many staff working in front-line services feel unprepared and uncomfortable asking people with psychosis about these problems. While greater use of screening tools may improve the identification of sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis, the evaluation and implementation of interventions to manage them will continue to be challenging unless NHS leaders and senior clinicians demonstrate greater commitment to changing current clinical practice., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants., Design: A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project)., Setting: Phase III effectiveness trials., Participants: A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members., Results: Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries., Conclusions: Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how 'best' to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the 'what, how, when and who' with regard to sharing results summaries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Within the context of scientific research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is defined as research performed "with" or "by" patients and members of the public, rather than "to," "about", or "for" them. When carried out systematically and thoughtfully, PPI has the potential to strengthen the quality and impact of research by fostering accountability, transparency, and relevance. There exist numerous guidelines, frameworks and tools for supporting PPI, however, these do not account for the unique challenges faced in psychedelic research. This paper describes the co-design of guidance intended to help build, evaluate and improve PPI in psychedelic research. A steering group was formed to design and run a co-design workshop alongside public collaborators. Insights from this workshop were analyzed and refined into a comprehensive and readily usable guide for planning PPI specific to the field of psychedelic research. Core values emerging from the process focused on the essential importance of trust, learning, purpose and inclusivity. It is hoped that this guidance will be a starting point for incorporating PPI in future psychedelic research, so that it can grow and adapt as this burgeoning field of research progresses., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Close, Bornemann, Piggin, Jayacodi, Luan, Carhart-Harris and Spriggs.)

Background: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants., Methods: A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics., Results: Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results., Conclusions: This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Background: Sexual dysfunction is common among people who are prescribed antipsychotic medication for psychosis. Sexual dysfunction can impair quality of life and reduce treatment adherence. Switching antipsychotic medication may help, but the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach is unclear., Objective: To examine whether or not switching antipsychotic medication provides a clinically effective and cost-effective method to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis., Design: A two-arm, researcher-blind, pilot randomised trial with a parallel qualitative study and an internal pilot phase. Study participants were randomised to enhanced standard care plus a switch of antipsychotic medication or enhanced standard care alone in a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was via an independent and remote web-based service using dynamic adaptive allocation, stratified by age, gender, Trust and relationship status., Setting: NHS secondary care mental health services in England., Participants: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, have schizophrenia or related psychoses and experience sexual dysfunction associated with the use of antipsychotic medication. We recruited only people for whom reduction in medication dosage was ineffective or inappropriate. We excluded those who were acutely unwell, had had a change in antipsychotic medication in the last 6 weeks, were currently prescribed clozapine or whose sexual dysfunction was believed to be due to a coexisting physical or mental disorder., Interventions: Switching to an equivalent dose of one of three antipsychotic medications that are considered to have a relatively low propensity for sexual side effects (i.e. quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). All participants were offered brief psychoeducation and support to discuss their sexual health and functioning., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported sexual dysfunction, measured using the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. Secondary outcomes were researcher-rated sexual functioning, mental health, side effects of medication, health-related quality of life and service utilisation. Outcomes were assessed 3 and 6 months after randomisation. Qualitative data were collected from a purposive sample of patients and clinicians to explore barriers to recruitment., Sample Size: Allowing for a 20% loss to follow-up, we needed to recruit 216 participants to have 90% power to detect a 3-point difference in total Arizona Sexual Experience Scale score (standard deviation 6.0 points) using a 0.05 significance level., Results: The internal pilot was discontinued after 12 months because of low recruitment. Ninety-eight patients were referred to the study between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, of whom 10 were randomised. Eight (80%) participants were followed up 3 months later. Barriers to referral and recruitment included staff apprehensions about discussing side effects, reluctance among patients to switch medication and reticence of both staff and patients to talk about sex., Limitations: Insufficient numbers of participants were recruited to examine the study hypotheses., Conclusions: It may not be possible to conduct a successful randomised trial of switching antipsychotic medication for sexual functioning in people with psychosis in the NHS at this time., Future Work: Research examining the acceptability and effectiveness of adjuvant phosphodiesterase inhibitors should be considered., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Michael J Crawford is Director of the College Centre for Quality Improvement at the Royal College of Psychiatrists (London, UK) (from 2011 to present) and has been a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment General Committee (2017–18). Elizabeth Hughes received personal fees for speaking at a Lundbeck (Copenhagen, Denmark)-sponsored event. Zoe Hoare has been a member of the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research panel (2016–20). Carol Paton received personal fees as an advisory board member for Allergan Ltd (Marlow, UK). Sofia Pappa received personal fees as a speaker for Janssen Pharmaceutica (Beerse, Belgium), Sunovion (Marlborough, MA, USA) and Recordati (Milan, Italy). Thomas RE Barnes received personal fees as a speaker for Janssen and as an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Newron Pharmaceuticals (Milan, Italy) and Gedeon Richter (Budapest, Hungary).

Background: Global mental health is a widely used term describing initiatives in policies, research and practice to improve the mental health of people worldwide. It has been gaining momentum over the last 10 years, reflected in increasing funding opportunities, training programmes, and publications. In light of the rising importance of global mental health and the various uncertainties about its future directions, this paper explores what the future may hold for global mental health in 30 years' time., Method: A scenario planning method was used, involving a workshop with experts from four continents and a range of backgrounds, including clinical and academic psychiatry, psychology, art and music therapy, service user advisory role, funder of global health research and post-graduate students., Results: Six distinct scenarios that describe potential future situations were developed: universal standards for care; worldwide coordination of research; making use of diversity; focus on social factors; globalised care through technology; mental health as a currency in global politics., Conclusions: These scenarios consider different social, economic, scientific and technological drivers and focus on distinct aspects. Some reflect a global application of possible trends in mental health, whilst others apply general global developments to mental health care. They are not fixed forecasts, but instead may help to promote discussion and debate about further developments and decisions.

Background: In the UK, life expectancy for people living with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is reduced by 15-20 years compared with the general population. In recent years, evidence based guidelines/policies designed to improve their physical health have been published, yet a gap remains between recommendations and practice. This case study describes how guidelines to support physical health were implemented using a quality improvement approach., Case Presentation: A quasi-experimental study explored systems and processes for assessing the physical health of patients admitted to an acute mental health unit. The multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals, service users and experts in quality improvement methods developed solutions to improve the assessment of physical health, drawing on existing guidelines/policies as well as professional and lived experience. Three key interventions were developed: a comprehensive physical health assessment; a patient-held physical health booklet; and education and training for staff and patients. Interventions were co-designed by front-line healthcare staff and service users with iterative development and implementation through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Real-time weekly data were reported on five measures over a 15-month implementation period (318 patients) and compared to a 10-month baseline period (247 patients) to gauge the success of the implementation of the physical health assessment. Improvements were seen in the numbers of patients receiving a physical health assessment: 81.3% (201/247) vs 96.9% (308/318), recording of body mass index: 21.55% (53/247) vs 58.6% (204/318) and systolic blood pressure: 22.35% (55/247) vs 75.9% (239/318) but a reduction in the recording of smoking status: 80.1% (198/247) vs 70.9% (225/318). However, 31.7% (118/318) patients had a cardiovascular risk-score documented in the implementation phase, compared to none in the baseline., Conclusion: This study demonstrates the use of a quality improvement approach to support teams to implement guidelines on physical health in the acute mental health setting. Reflections of the team have identified the need for resources, training, support and leadership to support changes to the way care is delivered. Furthermore, collaborations between service users and frontline clinical staff can co-design interventions to support improvements and raise awareness of the physical health needs of this population.