Mindfulness-Based Social Cognition Training (SocialMind) for People With Psychosis: A Feasibility Trial

Introduction: Difficulties in social functioning are common among people with psychosis. Negative symptoms such as blunted affect or social withdrawal are often linked to these difficulties and worsen real-life outcomes. One important dimension associated with social functioning is social cognition, which refers to the psychological processes that are necessary to perceive, encode, store, retrieve, and regulate social information. Mindfulness-based interventions for people with psychosis are safe and effective in improving anxiety and depressive symptoms; however, no mindfulness-based interventions addressing social cognition have yet been developed.Method: A pilot, single-arm, nonrandomized, noncontrolled feasibility trial is proposed. The main objectives are to assess the tolerability of mindfulness-based social cognition training (SocialMind) and to test the feasibility of a further randomized controlled trial.Results: A final sample of 25 outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was included. Attrition rate was lower than usual for this population, and most participants completed the training. No adverse effects were identified in terms of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, dissociative and psychotic symptoms, or state of anxiety during the sessions.Conclusion: This is the first implementation of SocialMind, which is the first mindfulness-based social cognition training. It is well tolerated by participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and a further randomized controlled trial is proposed for people who have suffered their first episode of psychosis within the past 5 years.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03434405

The black hole of the transition process : dropout of care before transition age in adolescents

Recent evidence confirms the risks of discontinuity of care when young people make a transition from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to adult mental health services (AMHS), although robust data are still sparse. We aimed to identify when and how patients get lost to care during transition by tracking care pathways and identifying factors which influence dropping out of care during transition. This is a retrospective observational study of 760 patients who reached the transition age boundary within 12 months before transition time and being treated at CAMHS for at least during preceding 18 months. Data were collected at two time points: last visit to CAHMS and first visit to AHMS. Socio-demographic, clinical and service utilization variables on CAMHS treatment were collected. In the 12 months leading up to the transition boundary, 46.8% of subjects (n = 356) withdrew from CAHMS without further contact with AHMS, 9.3% withdrew from CAHMS but were referred to AHMS by other services, 29% were transferred from CAHMS to AHMS, 10% remained at CAHMS and 5% patients were transferred to alternative services. Fifty-six percent of subjects experience cessation of care before the transition age. The risk of dropout increases with shorter contact time in CAMHS, is greater in subjects without pharmacological treatment, and decreases in subjects with psychosis, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, mental retardation, and neurodevelopmental disorders. This study confirms that a large number of people drop out of care as they approach the CAMHS transition and experience discontinuity of care during this critical period

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. Objective To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. Findings Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. Clinical implications Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies

Beyond effectiveness in eHealth trials: Process evaluation of a stepped-care programme to support healthcare workers with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs)

Objectives: This study presents the process evaluation of an effective stepped-care programme of eHealth interventions (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress [DWM] and Problem Management Plus [PM+]) for healthcare workers (HCWs) with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs trial) conducted in Spain. The aim is to analyse the context in which the programme was delivered, assess key implementation outcomes and explore mechanisms of action. Methods: We used mixed methods. Quantitative data came from routine randomised control trial monitoring and structured observation, and qualitative data were collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with trial participants (n = 12) and decision-makers (n = 7) and a focus group discussion with intervention providers (n = 7). We conducted a descriptive analysis of quantitative data using R software and a thematic analysis of qualitative data using NVivo. Results: Context analysis revealed implementation barriers, including unrealistic expectations of participants about the programme and mental health-related stigma. The flexibility of interventions and the opportunity for mental health actions were enabling factors. Implementation outcomes showed that the trial was feasible, appropriate and timely, and that the intervention was delivered with minimal protocol deviations and good acceptance among participants. Mechanisms of action included confidence in the positive effect of the intervention, a good therapeutic relationship and specific intervention components. Conclusions: These results supplement the outcome evaluation and can help inform large-scale implementation in similar settings. Specific recommendations include increasing mental health awareness and reducing stigma in the implementation setting, including a short orientation session and ensuring flexibility in schedules and peer support. Trial registration number: NCT04980326

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial

The dataset that supports the findings of this study are archived in the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid data repository e‐cienciaDatos in https://doi.org/10.21950/HN1HNOBackground and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers’ mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire – Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326The RESPOND project was funded under Horizon 2020 -the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014– 2020) (grant number: 101016127), and the work of MF-N was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of the ISCIII (CD20/ 00036

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic