Knowledge engineering for mental-health risk assessment and decision support

Mental-health risk assessment practice in the UK is mainly paper-based, with little standardisation in the tools that are used across the Services. The tools that are available tend to rely on minimal sets of items and unsophisticated scoring methods to identify at-risk individuals. This means the reasoning by which an outcome has been determined remains uncertain. Consequently, there is little provision for: including the patient as an active party in the assessment process, identifying underlying causes of risk, and eecting shared decision-making. This thesis develops a tool-chain for the formulation and deployment of a computerised clinical decision support system for mental-health risk assessment. The resultant tool, GRiST, will be based on consensual domain expert knowledge that will be validated as part of the research, and will incorporate a proven psychological model of classication for risk computation. GRiST will have an ambitious remit of being a platform that can be used over the Internet, by both the clinician and the layperson, in multiple settings, and in the assessment of patients with varying demographics. Flexibility will therefore be a guiding principle in the development of the platform, to the extent that GRiST will present an assessment environment that is tailored to the circumstances in which it nds itself. XML and XSLT will be the key technologies that help deliver this exibility

Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy versus virtual reality mental relaxation therapy for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (THRIVE): a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in England with mediation analyses

Background: Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem that often do not respond sufficiently to standard pharmacological or psychological treatments. We developed a new brief automated virtual reality (VR) cognitive treatment that has the potential to be used easily in clinical services. We aimed to compare VR cognitive therapy with an alternative VR therapy (mental relaxation), with an emphasis on understanding potential mechanisms of action. Methods: THRIVE was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across four UK National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were included if they were aged 16 years or older, had a persistent (at least 3 months) persecutory delusion held with at least 50% conviction, reported feeling threatened when outside with other people, and had a primary diagnosis from the referring clinical team of a non-affective psychotic disorder. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to either THRIVE VR cognitive therapy or VR mental relaxation, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by severity of delusion. Usual care continued for all participants. Each VR therapy was provided in four sessions over approximately 4 weeks, supported by an assistant psychologist or clinical psychologist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 2 (therapy mid-point), 4 (primary endpoint, end of treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0–100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed the treatment credibility and expectancy of the interventions and the two mechanisms (defence behaviours and safety beliefs) that the cognitive intervention was designed to target. This trial is prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12497310. Findings: From Sept 21, 2018, to May 13, 2021 (with a pause due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020), we recruited 80 participants with persistent persecutory delusions (49 [61%] men, 31 [39%] women, with a mean age of 40 years [SD 13, range 18–73], 64 [80%] White, six [8%] Black, one [1%] Indian, three [4%] Pakistani, and six [8%] other race or ethnicity). We randomly assigned 39 (49%) participants assigned to VR cognitive therapy and 41 (51%) participants to VR mental relaxation. 33 (85%) participants who were assigned to VR cognitive therapy attended all four sessions, and 35 (85%) participants assigned to VR mental relaxation attended all four sessions. We found no significant differences between the two VR interventions in participant ratings of treatment credibility (adjusted mean difference –1·55 [95% CI –3·68 to 0·58]; p=0·15) and outcome expectancy (–0·91 [–3·42 to 1·61]; p=0·47). 77 (96%) participants provided follow-up data at the primary timepoint. Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater improvement in persecutory delusions (adjusted mean difference –2·16 [–12·77 to 8·44]; p=0·69). Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater reduction in use of defence behaviours (adjusted mean difference –0·71 [–4·21 to 2·79]; p=0·69) or a greater increase in belief in safety (–5·89 [–16·83 to 5·05]; p=0·29). There were 17 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial (ten events in seven participants in the VR cognitive therapy group and seven events in five participants in the VR mental relaxation group). Interpretation: The two VR interventions performed similarly, despite the fact that they had been designed to affect different mechanisms. Both interventions had high uptake rates and were associated with large improvements in persecutory delusions but it cannot be determined that the treatments accounted for the change. Immersive technologies hold promise for the treatment of severe mental health problems. However, their use will likely benefit from experimental research on the application of different therapeutic techniques and the effects on a range of potential mechanisms of action.The trial was funded by the Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (MR/P02629X/1). It was also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-2000). DF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. DMC is an Emeritus NIHR Senior Investigator. This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. FW is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (102176/B/13/Z). MS is supported by the European Research Council Grant MoTIVE (742989).Peer ReviewedArticle signat per 23 autors/es: Department of Experimental Psychology (Prof D Freeman DClinPsy, R Lister DClinPsy, F Waite DClinPsych, S Lambe DClinPsy, A Beckley MA, E Bold BSc, L Jenner BA, R Diamond DClinPsych, M Kirkham DClinPsych, E Twivy DClinPsych, C Causier MSc, L Carr BSc, S Saidel MSc, A Rovira PhD, Prof D M Clark DPhil, L Rosebrock PhD), Oxford Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (U Galal MSc, L-M Yu PhD), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK (Prof D Freeman, F Waite, S Lambe, R Diamond, A Rovira, Prof D M Clark, L Rosebrock); Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK (R Lister); Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK (R Day BSc, A Ivins DClinPsych, R Nah DClinPsy); Event Lab, Faculty of Psychology Spain (A Beacco PhD, Prof M Slater DSc), Institute of Neurosciences (Prof M Slater), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (A Beacco); Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (R Nah)Postprint (published version

Scoping a vision for formative e-assessment: a project report for JISC

Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. If the relationship between teaching and learning were causal, i. e. if students always mastered the intended learning outcomes of a particular sequence of instruction, assessment would be superfluous. Experience and research suggest this is not the case: what is learnt can often be quite different from what is taught. Formative assessment is motivated by a concern with the elicitation of relevant information about student understanding and / or achievement, its interpretation and an exploration of how it can lead to actions that result in better learning. In the context of a policy drive towards technology-enhanced approaches to teaching and learning, the question of the role of digital technologies is key and it is the latter on which this project particularly focuses. The project and its deliverables have been informed by recent and relevant literature, in particular recent work by Black andIn this work, they put forward a framework which suggests that assessment for learning their term for formative assessment can be conceptualised as consisting of a number of aspects and five keystrategies. The key aspects revolve around the where the learner is going, where the learner is right now and how she can get there and examines the role played by the teacher, peers and the learner. Language: English Keywords: assessments, case studies, design patterns, e-assessmen