Search

AbstractBackgroundHistorically, researchers have been apt at conducting research on, rather than with, the people who are the focus of their efforts. Such approaches often fail to effectively support and benefit the populations they are intended to. This study aimed to explore the preferences of people with lived experience for engagement with research either as research participants within studies, or through active involvement in mental health research.MethodsData for this paper were collected in three separate lived experience agenda‐setting studies conducted over a 9‐year period from 2013 to 2022; two group discussions and an open‐ended online survey. Data were combined and thematic analysis undertaken.ResultsParticipants described the inclusion of lived experience as a critical ingredient and the highest level of knowledge and expertise in mental health research that should lead to knowledge generation and research agendas. Participants discussed the importance and value of research that enables sharing experiences and stories, expressed a need for flexibility in research methods for choice and agency, and support for greater active involvement of people with lived experience across all stages of research. Participants also spoke to the need for perspective and knowledge generated from people with lived experience to have equal power in research, making space for lived experience voices across multiple aspects of research, and greater respect and recognition of the value of lived experience.ConclusionLived experience in mental health research is coming of age, but dedicated, cocreated development is needed to get it right. People with lived experience increasingly understand the value their experiential knowl

BACKGROUND: This paper reports on the cost-effectiveness evaluation of Link-me - a digitally supported, systematic approach to triaging care for depression and anxiety in primary care that uses a patient-completed Decision Support Tool (DST). METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a parallel, stratified individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing prognosis-matched care to usual care at six- and 12-month follow-up. Twenty-three general practices in three Australian Primary Health Networks recruited 1,671 adults (aged 18 - 75 years), predicted by the DST to have minimal/mild or severe depressive or anxiety symptoms in three months. The minimal/mild prognostic group was referred to low intensity services. Participants screened in the severe prognostic group were offered high intensity care navigation, a model of care coordination. The outcome measures included in this evaluation were health sector costs (including development and delivery of the DST, care navigation and other healthcare services used) and societal costs (health sector costs plus lost productivity), psychological distress [Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)] and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EuroQol 5-dimension quality of life questionnaire with Australian general population preference weights applied. Costs were valued in 2018-19 Australian dollars (A$). RESULTS: Across all participants, the health sector incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Link-me per point decrease in K10 at six months was estimated at $1,082 (95% CI $391 to $6,204) increasing to $2,371 (95% CI $191 to Dominated) at 12 months. From a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at $1,257/K10 point decrease (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at six months, decreasing to $1,217 (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at 12 months. No significant differences in QALYs were detected between trial arms and the intervention was dominated (less effective, more costly) based on the c

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners are being called upon to work with their patients to reduce dementia risk. However, it is unclear who should do what with whom, when, and under what circumstances. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify clinical guidelines for dementia risk reduction (DRR) in primary care settings, synthesize the guidelines into actionable behaviors, and appraise the guidelines for specificity. METHODS: Terms related to "dementia", "guidelines", and "risk reduction" were entered into two academic databases and two web search engines. Guidelines were included if they referred specifically to clinical practices for healthcare professionals for primary prevention of dementia. Included guidelines were analyzed using a directed content analysis method, underpinned by the Action-Actor-Context-Target-Time framework for specifying behavior. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines were included in the analysis. Together, the guidelines recommended six distinct clusters of actions for DRR. These were to 1) invite patients to discuss DRR, 2) identify patients with risk factors for dementia, 3) discuss DRR, 4) manage dementia risk factors, 5) signpost to additional support, and 6) follow up. Guidelines recommended various actors, contexts, targets, and times for performing these actions. Together, guidelines lacked specificity and were at times contradictory. CONCLUSION: Currently available guidelines allow various approaches to promoting DRR in primary care. Primary care teams are advised to draw on the results of the review to decide which actions to undertake and the locally appropriate actors, contexts, targets, and times for these actions. Documenting these decisions in more specific, local guidelines for promoting DRR should facilitate implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Pandemics negatively impact healthcare workers' (HCW's) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW's mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs' mental health and well-being during pandemics? DESIGN: A narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies. DATA SOURCES: Evidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Subject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors. RESULTS: 2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW's mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCW i

BACKGROUND: The volume and heterogeneity of mental health problems that primary care patients present with is a substantial challenge for health systems, and both undertreatment and overtreatment are common. We developed Link-me, a patient-completed Decision Support Tool, to predict severity of depression or anxiety, identify priorities, and recommend interventions. In this study, we aimed to examine if Link-me reduces psychological distress among individuals predicted to have minimal/mild or severe symptoms of anxiety or depression. METHODS: In this pragmatic stratified randomised controlled trial, adults aged 18-75 years reporting depressive or anxiety symptoms or use of mental health medication were recruited from 23 general practices in Australia. Participants completed the Decision Support Tool and were classified into three prognostic groups (minimal/mild, moderate, severe), and those in the minimal/mild and severe groups were eligible for inclusion. Participants were individually and randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either prognosis-matched care (intervention group) or usual care plus attention control (control group). Participants were not blinded but intervention providers were only notified of those allocated to the intervention group. Outcome assessment was blinded. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in scores between the intervention and control group, and within prognostic groups, on the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale at 6 months post randomisation. The trial was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001333303. OUTCOMES: Between Nov 21, 2017, and Oct 31, 2018, 24 616 patients were invited to complete the eligibility screening survey. 1671 of these patients were included and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=834) or the control group (n=837). Prognosis-matched care was associated with greater reductions in psycholog

BACKGROUND: Subthreshold depression is common in primary care, but there is little information about the self-help strategies that patients use and the perceived benefits of these. AIM: This study sought to elicit the self-help strategies that primary care attendees identified as beneficial for the self-management of subthreshold depressive symptoms and the implications for general practitioners. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 14 people (April-May 2017) from the Target-D randomised controlled trial (RCT). Target-D investigated whether using a patient-centred clinical prediction tool and an e-health platform to match mental health management options to prognosis was beneficial for improving depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care. Interviews were thematically analysed to identify self-help strategies and their perceived benefits. RESULTS: Four overarching domains for the self-management strategies were identified: social, cognitive, behavioural and restorative. Interviewees reported using strategies across multiple domains, which included undertaking enjoyable, immersive activities, that provided relief from automatic negative thoughts and had a perceived cognitive benefit. Differences in the perceived sense of agency were noted around the self-regulation of mood, which indicated more explicit direction to patient-identified self-help management strategies by general practitioners for some may be of benefit in routine care. CONCLUSION: Some of the reported self-management strategies aligned with evidence-based approaches such as physical activity and mindfulness for mental health symptom management. These findings can inform low-intensity interventions within stepped care models for mental health in primary care, social prescribing models and, help to guide the management of patients by GPs for subthreshold depression.

BACKGROUND: At time of discharge after a pneumonia admission, care planning for older persons with dementia is essential. However, care planning is limited by lack of knowledge on the short-term prognosis. AIM: To investigate 30-day mortality and readmission after hospital discharge for pneumonia in persons with versus without dementia, and to investigate how these associations vary with age, time since discharge, and medication use. METHODS: Using the Danish registries, we investigated 30-day mortality and readmission in persons (+65 years) discharged after pneumonia in 2000-2016 (N = 298,872). Adjusted mortality rate ratios (aMRRs) and incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) were calculated for persons with versus without dementia, and we investigated if these associations varied with use of benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics, and with age and time since discharge. RESULTS: Among 25,948 persons with dementia, 4,524 died and 5,694 were readmitted within 30 days. The risk of 30-day mortality was 129% higher (95% CI 2.21-2.37) in persons with versus without dementia after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, admission-related factors, and comorbidities. Further, the highest mortality risk was found in persons with both dementia and use of antipsychotics (aMRR: 3.39, 95% CI 3.19-3.59); 16% of deaths in this group could not be explained by the independent effect of each exposure. In those with dementia, the highest aMRRs were found for the youngest and for the first days after discharge. The risk of 30-day readmission was 7% higher (95% CI 1.04-1.10) in persons with versus without dementia. In those with dementia, the highest aIRRs were found for the first days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia was associated with higher short-term mortality after pneumonia, especially in users of antipsychotics, and with slightly higher readmission, especially in the first days after discharge. This is essential knowledge in the care planning for persons with dementia

BACKGROUND: Mental health treatment rates are increasing, but the burden of disease has not reduced. Tools to support efficient resource distribution are required. AIM: To investigate whether a person-centred e-health (Target-D) platform matching depression care to symptom severity prognosis can improve depressive symptoms relative to usual care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Stratified individually randomised controlled trial in 14 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from April 2016 to February 2019. In total, 1868 participants aged 18-65 years who had current depressive symptoms; internet access; no recent change to antidepressant; no current antipsychotic medication; and no current psychological therapy were randomised (1:1) via computer-generated allocation to intervention or usual care. METHOD: The intervention was an e-health platform accessed in the GP waiting room, comprising symptom feedback, priority-setting, and prognosis-matched management options (online self-help, online guided psychological therapy, or nurse-led collaborative care). Management options were flexible, neither participants nor staff were blinded, and there were no substantive protocol deviations. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) at 3 months. RESULTS: In intention to treat analysis, estimated between- arm difference in mean PHQ-9 scores at 3 months was -0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.45 to -0.31) favouring the intervention, and -0.59 at 12 months (95% CI = -1.18 to 0.01); standardised effect sizes of -0.16 (95% CI = -0.26 to -0.05) and -0.10 (95% CI = -0.21 to 0.002), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Matching management to prognosis using a person-centred e-health platform improves depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care and could feasibly be implemented at scale. Scope exists to enhance the uptake of management options.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health care workers' mental health and well-being for the successful function of the health care system. Few targeted digital tools exist to support the mental health of hospital-based health care workers, and none of them appear to have been led and co-designed by health care workers. OBJECTIVE: RMHive is being led and developed by health care workers using experience-based co-design (EBCD) processes as a mobile app to support the mental health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to health care workers. We present a protocol for the impact evaluation for the rapid design and delivery of the RMHive mobile app. METHODS: The impact evaluation will adopt a mixed methods design. Qualitative data from photo interviews undertaken with up to 30 health care workers and semistructured interviews conducted with up to 30 governance stakeholders will be integrated with qualitative and quantitative user analytics data and user-generated demographic and mental health data entered into the app. Analyses will address three evaluation questions related to engagement with the mobile app, implementation and integration of the app, and the impact of the app on individual mental health outcomes. The design and development will be described using the Mobile Health Evidence Reporting and Assessment guidelines. Implementation of the app will be evaluated using normalization process theory to analyze qualitative data from interviews combined with text and video analysis from the semistructured interviews. Mental health impacts will be assessed using the total score of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) and subscale scores for the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Scale for anxiety. The PHQ4 will be completed at baseline and at 14 and 28 days. RESULTS: The anticipated average use period of the app is 30 days. The rapid design will occur over four months us

INTRODUCTION: Aphasia is an impairment of language that occurs in 30%-40% of stroke survivors. This often chronic condition results in poor outcomes for the individual with aphasia and their family. Long-term aphasia management is limited, with few people receiving sufficient services by 6-12 months postonset. We present a protocol for the development of coproduced aphasia service elements. We will use experience-based codesign (EBCD), an approach that enables service users and providers to collaboratively develop services and care pathways. Drawing on the experiences of people with aphasia, their families and clinicians we will establish priorities for the development of new services and later work together to codesign them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research will be coproduced with people with aphasia (n=30-60), their families (n=30-60) and speech pathologists (n=30-60) in Queensland, Australia, using EBCD. A consumer advisory committee will provide oversight and advice throughout the research. In phase 1, we will use semistructured interviews and the nominal group technique to explore experiences and unmet needs in aphasia rehabilitation. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the resulting themes will be prioritised in multistakeholder focus groups. Outcomes of phase 1 will inform future research (phase 2) to codesign services. Financial costs and participant experiences of EBCD will be measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committee approval for phase 1 has been obtained (HREC/2020/QRBW/61368). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journal articles, presented at relevant conferences and, following EBCD suggested best practice, fed back to participants and community members at a celebratory event at completion of the project. The inclusion of service users in all stages of research will facilitate an integrated approach to knowledge translation. A summary of research findings will be made available to participating sites.

BACKGROUND: Mental health policies outline the need for codesign of services and quality improvement in partnership with service users and staff (and sometimes carers), and yet, evidence of systematic implementation and the impacts on healthcare outcomes is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve recovery-orientation of services led to greater psychosocial recovery outcomes for service users. DESIGN: A stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four Mental Health Community Support Services providers, 287 people living with severe mental illnesses, 61 carers and 120 staff were recruited across Victoria, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-R) measured individual psychosocial recovery. RESULTS: A total of 841 observations were completed with 287 service users. The intention-to-treat analysis found RAS-R scores to be similar between the intervention (mean = 84.7, SD= 15.6) and control (mean = 86.5, SD= 15.3) phases; the adjusted estimated difference in the mean RAS-R score was -1.70 (95% confidence interval: -3.81 to 0.40; p = .11). DISCUSSION: This first trial of an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention for psychosocial recovery outcomes found no difference between the intervention and control arms. CONCLUSIONS: More attention to the conditions that are required for eight essential mechanisms of change to support codesign processes and implementation is needed. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The State consumer (Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council) and carer peak bodies (Tandem representing mental health carers) codeveloped the intervention. The adapted intervention was facilitated by coinvestigators with lived-experiences who were coauthors for the trial and process evaluation protocols, the engagement model and explanatory model of change for the trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the potential prevention of dementia through lifestyle risk factor modification is growing and has prompted examination of implementation approaches. Understanding the general population's perspectives regarding dementia risk reduction is key to implementation. This may provide useful insights into more effective and efficient ways to help people change relevant beliefs, motivations and behaviour patterns. We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence to develop an integrated model of general population dementia risk reduction perspectives and the implications for intervention in research and implementation contexts. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched electronic databases, supplemented by lateral search techniques, to identify studies published since 1995 reporting qualitative dementia risk reduction perspectives of the non-expert general population who do not have dementia. Thematic synthesis, incorporating an expert panel discussion, was used to identify overarching themes and develop an integrated model to guide intervention to support individuals to adopt and maintain dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns. Quality of included studies and confidence in review findings were systematically appraised. We included 50 papers, reflecting the views of more than 4,500 individuals. Main themes were: 1) The need for effective education about a complex topic to prevent confusion and facilitate understanding and empowerment; 2) Personally relevant short- and long-term benefits of dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns can generate value and facilitate action; 3) Individuals benefit from trusted, reliable and sensitive support to convert understanding to personal commitment to relevant behaviour change; 4) Choice, control and relevant self-regulatory supports help individuals take-action and direct their own progress; 5) Collaborative and empowering social opportunities can facilitate and propagate dementia ri

This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' - an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the sha

Mental health services are increasingly encouraged to use co-design methodologies to engage individuals and families affected by mental health problems in service design and improvement. This scoping review aimed to identify research that used co-design methods with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities in mental health services, and to identify methodological considerations for working with this population. In October 2019, we searched five electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science) to identify papers published in which people from CALD backgrounds were engaged in the co-design of a mental health service or program. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English in the last 25 years (1993-2019). The search identified nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria. Using a scoping review methodology, the first author charted the data using extraction fields and then used qualitative synthesis methods to identify themes. Data were grouped into themes relevant to the research question. The two key themes relate first, to improving the experience for CALD communities when engaging in co-design research and second, to the development of co-design methods themselves. These findings support the need for further research into the transferability of co-design tools with CALD communities, particularly if co-design is to become a best practice method for service design and improvement. This scoping review identified methodological and practical consideration for researchers looking to use co-design with CALD communities for mental health service design, re-design or quality improvement initiatives. Further research is required to explore experiences of co-design methods, including documented protocols such as experience-based co-design, with CALD communities. This review indicates that explanatory models of mental health, community and co-design impact partnerships with CALD communities, and need to be

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health care workers’ mental health and well-being for the successful function of the health care system. Few targeted digital tools exist to support the mental health of hospital-based health care workers, and none of them appear to have been led and co-designed by health care workers. ec> RMHive is being led and developed by health care workers using experience-based co-design (EBCD) processes as a mobile app to support the mental health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to health care workers. We present a protocol for the impact evaluation for the rapid design and delivery of the RMHive mobile app. ec> The impact evaluation will adopt a mixed methods design. Qualitative data from photo interviews undertaken with up to 30 health care workers and semistructured interviews conducted with up to 30 governance stakeholders will be integrated with qualitative and quantitative user analytics data and user-generated demographic and mental health data entered into the app. Analyses will address three evaluation questions related to engagement with the mobile app, implementation and integration of the app, and the impact of the app on individual mental health outcomes. The design and development will be described using the Mobile Health Evidence Reporting and Assessment guidelines. Implementation of the app will be evaluated using normalization process theory to analyze qualitative data from interviews combined with text and video analysis from the semistructured interviews. Mental health impacts will be assessed using the total score of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) and subscale scores for the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Scale for anxiety. The PHQ4 will be completed at baseline and at 14 and 28 days. ec>