The clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Victim Improvement Package (VIP) for the reduction of chronic symptoms of depression or anxiety in older victims of common crime (the VIP trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older people are vulnerable to sustained high levels of psychosocial distress following a crime. A cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-informed psychological therapy, the Victim Improvement Package (VIP) may aid recovery. The VIP trial aims to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the VIP for alleviating depressive and anxiety symptoms in older victims of crime. METHODS/DESIGN: People aged 65 years or more who report being a victim of crime will be screened by Metropolitan Police Service Safer Neighbourhood Teams within a month of the crime for distress using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-2. Those who screen positive will be signposted to their GP for assistance, and re-screened at 3 months. Participants who screen positive for depression and/or anxiety at re-screening are randomised to a CBT informed VIP added to treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone. The intervention consists of 10 individual 1-h sessions, delivered weekly by therapists from the mental health charity Mind. The primary outcome measure is the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), used as a composite measure, assessed at 6 months after the crime (post therapy) with a 9-month post-crime follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include the EQ-5D, and a modified Client Service Receipt Inventory. A total of 226 participants will be randomised VIP:TAU with a ratio 1:1, in order to detect a standardised difference of at least 0.5 between groups, using a mixed-effects linear-regression model with 90% power and a 5% significance level (adjusting for therapist clustering and potential drop-out). A cost-effectiveness analysis will incorporate intervention costs to compare overall health care costs and quality of life years between treatment arms. An embedded study will examine the impact of past trauma and engagement in safety behaviours and distress on the main outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial should provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a CBT-informed psychological therapy for older victims of crime with anxiety and/or depressive symptoms and should demonstrate a model of integrated cross-agency working. Our findings should provide evidence for policy-makers, commissioners and clinicians responding to the needs of older victims of crime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ID: ISRCTN16929670. Registered on 3 August 2016

Belfast THRI[VES]: Transformative Health and Regeneration Initiatives [for Vibrancy, Equality, and Sustainability]:Project Report

Belfast THRI[VES] is a pilot collaboration between Ulster University’s Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment, the School of Psychology, and Bamford Centre for Mental Health &amp; Wellbeing, working with Operational Partners from Belfast City Council’s City Regeneration &amp; Development Division and The Department for Infrastructure. The project was funded through Belfast City Council via the Department for Communities COVID-19 Recovery Revitalisation Programme, and the Department for Infrastructure. This report represents the overall project findings, literature reviews, case studies, lessons and recommendations. Examining how the City Centre can be an improved, inclusive, and innovative place for future generations, THRI[VES] argues for liveability as a unique framework to evaluate and deliver projects within and/or impacting on the public realm, primarily, through enhanced wellbeing priorities. It also investigates the role of public-private engagement to reframe wellbeing-based criteria and more effectively connect statutory and tactical regeneration process to more informal bottom-up evidence-based considerations that can collectively address and develop innovative solutions to tackle health, climate-change, and socio-economic stresses. Four objectives structure the synthesis and presentation of report findings to:• Assist Council-Executive goals to develop effective public decision-making processes to reimagine greener, healthier, more vibrant city spaces (in line with A Bolder Vision aspirations).• Identify areas for improved cross-sector data-sharing on wellbeing, sustainability, and resilience.• Develop evidence-based proposals to improve public-space policy and decision-making.• Propose new data-sharing platforms and future collaborations to inform more effective evidence-based policy, design, and post-evaluation of new public realm projects for wellbeing.Focusing on Belfast city centre, primary evidence, literature reviews, and international precedents provide wider lessons about urban governance and place-management at different scales of development including: • smaller projects (pop-ups, parklets, and meanwhile type examples) • neighbourhood-wide visioning and masterplanning proposals, and• city-wide to regional and national planning and regeneration project development policy.The above project levels, discussed in report examples, acknowledge how all development and policy are interconnected, impacted by complex spatial and community decisions for local/national governing bodies. The report highlights a need for greater shared understandings and collaboration amongst all policymakers, professionals, and the public about the terms, data, and co-production processes that inform both urban and rural development. The findings, discussions, and summary recommendations – set out below and expanded upon in the concluding chapter- are thus seen as a starting point to help improve placemaking for greater liveability and sustainable livelihood in Belfast and all villages, towns, and city centres. Ulster University Academic Research Team and Belfast City Council PartnersBelfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment:Dr Saul Golden, PI, Lecturer in Architecture &amp; Spatial DesignDr Gavan Rafferty, Co-I Lecturer in Spatial Planning and DevelopmentProfessor Gerry Leavey, Co-I, Director, Bamford Centre for Mental Health and WellbeingBelfast City Council City Regeneration &amp; Development Dr Callie Persic, Development Manager Ms Niamh Mulrine, Regeneration Project Officer<br/

Pastoral care of mental illness and the accommodation of African Christian beliefs and practices by UK clergy

Faith-based organisations, especially those related to specific ethnic or migrant groups, are increasingly viewed by secular Western government agencies as potential collaborators in community health and welfare programmes. Although clergy are often called upon to provide mental health pastoral care, their response to such problems remains relatively unexamined. This paper examines how clergy working in multiethnic settings do not always have the answers that people want, or perhaps need, to problems of misfortune and suffering. In the UK these barriers can be attributed, generally, to a lack of training on mental health problems and minimal collaboration with health services. The current paper attempts to highlight the dilemmas of the established churches’ involvement in mental health care in the context of diversity. We explore the inability of established churches to accommodate African and other spiritual beliefs and practices related to the etiology and treatment of mental health problems

An Online Survey of the Dietary Practices of Saudi Students in the UK: A Quantitative Study

There has been an abundance of research on the dietary practices of international university students in the United Kingdom (UK), as they comprise a significant proportion of the country’s undergraduate population. However, there is a paucity in the literature with regard to the dietary practices, or other health behaviours, of Saudi students studying in the UK. Therefore, this empirical study sought to provide new insights to address this gap. This study contribution to investigate the dietary practices of Saudi students in the UK. The data was collected from a sample of 212 university students and encompassed an age range from 18 to 31+ years. A quantitative methodology was adopted in the form of an exploratory survey questionnaire. The sample was recruited through voluntary and snowball sampling techniques. Questionnaire data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS for Windows, version 26. The results demonstrated that various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental factors play a significant role in developing eating behaviours and dietary choices. Some favourable changes in dietary practices were observed among Saudi students in the UK as opposed to Saudi Arabia, including a higher intake of fruit and vegetables, along with a lower intake of soft drinks, sugary and fatty foods. However, there was a notable reduction in consumption of all types of meat and fish as well as the total number of daily meals. Additionally, around a third of participants regularly consumed ready-to-eat food and takeaways 2-6 times a week. Interventions should therefore consider individual, societal and environmental factors

What are the barriers to care integration for those at the advanced stages of dementia living in care homes in the UK? Health care professional perspective

People with advanced dementia are frequently bed-bound, doubly incontinent and able to speak only a few words. Many reside in care homes and may often have complex needs requiring efficient and timely response by knowledgeable and compassionate staff. The aim of this study is to improve our understanding of health care professionals' attitudes and knowledge of the barriers to integrated care for people with advanced dementia. In-depth, interactive interviews conducted with 14 health care professionals including commissioners, care home managers, nurses and health care assistants in the UK. Barriers to care for people with advanced dementia are influenced by governmental and societal factors which contribute to challenging environments in care homes, poor morale amongst care staff and a fragmentation of health and social care at the end of life. Quality of care for people with dementia as they approach death may be improved by developing collaborative networks to foster improved relationships between health and social care services

Agitation near the end of life with dementia: An ethnographic study of care

Background and objectives Agitation is common in people living with dementia especially at the end of life. We examined how staff interpreted agitation behavior in people with dementia nearing end of life, how this may influence their responses and its impact on the quality of care. Research design Ethnographic study. Structured and semi-structured non-participant observations (referred to subsequently in this paper as “structured observations”) of people living with dementia nearing the end of life in hospital and care homes (south-east England) and in-depth interviews with staff, conducted August 2015-March 2017. Methods Three data sources: 1) detailed field notes, 2) observations using a structured tool and checklist for behaviors classed as agitation and staff and institutional responses, 3) staff semi-structured qualitative interviews. We calculated the time participants were agitated and described staff responses. Data sources were analyzed separately, developed continuously and relationally during the study and synthesized where appropriate. Results We identified two main ‘ideal types’ of staff explanatory models for agitation: In the first, staff attribute agitated behaviors to the person’s “moral judgement”, making them prone to rejecting or punitive responses. In the second staff adopt a more “needs-based” approach in which agitation behaviors are regarded as meaningful and managed with proactive and investigative approaches. These different approaches appear to have significant consequences for the timing, frequency and quality of staff response. While these models may overlap they tend to reflect distinct organizational resources and values. Conclusions Care worker knowledge about agitation is not enough, and staff need organizational support to care better for people living with dementia towards end of life. Positional theory may help to explain much of the cultural-structural context that produces staff disengagement from people with dementia, offering insights on how agitation behavior is reframed by some staff as dangerous. Such behavior may be associated with low-resource institutions with minimal staff training where the personhood of staff may be neglected

Supported accommodation for people with mental health problems: the QuEST research programme with feasibility RCT

This work was produced by Killaspy et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. Background Across England, around 60,000 people live in mental health supported accommodation: residential care, supported housing and floating outreach. Residential care and supported housing provide on-site support (residential care provides the highest level), whereas floating outreach staff visit people living in their own tenancies. Despite their abundance, little is known about the quality and outcomes of these services. Objectives The aim was to assess the quality, costs and effectiveness of mental health supported accommodation services in England. The objectives were (1) to adapt the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC) and the Client Assessment of Treatment scale for use in mental health supported accommodation services; (2) to assess the quality and costs of these services in England and the proportion of people who ‘move on’ to less supported accommodation without placement breakdown (e.g. to move from residential care to supported housing or supported housing to floating outreach, or, for those receiving floating outreach, to manage with fewer hours of support); (3) to identify service and service user factors (including costs) associated with greater quality of life, autonomy and successful move-on; and (4) to carry out a feasibility trial to assess the required sample size and appropriate outcomes for a randomised evaluation of two existing models of supported accommodation. Design Objective 1 – focus groups with staff (n = 12) and service users (n = 16); psychometric testing in 52 services, repeated in 87 services (adapted QuIRC) and with 618 service users (adapted Client Assessment of Treatment scale). Objectives 2 and 3 – national survey and prospective cohort study involving 87 services (residential care, n = 22; supported housing, n = 35; floating outreach, n = 30) and 619 service users followed over 30 months; qualitative interviews with 30 staff and 30 service users. Objective 4 – individually randomised, parallel-group feasibility trial in three centres. Setting English mental health supported accommodation services. Participants Staff and users of mental health supported accomodation services. Interventions Feasibility trial involved two existing models of supported accommodation: supported housing and floating outreach. Main outcome measures Cohort study – proportion of participants who successfully moved to less supported accommodation at 30 months’ follow-up without placement breakdown. Feasibility trial – participant recruitment and withdrawal rates. Results The adapted QuIRC [QuIRC: Supported Accomodation (QuIRC-SA)] had excellent inter-rater reliability, and exploratory factor analysis confirmed its structural validity (all items loaded onto the relevant domain at the &gt; ± 0.3 level). The adapted Client Assessment of Treatment for Supported Accommodation had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.89) and convergent validity (r s = 0.369; p &lt; 0.001). Supported housing services scored higher than residential care and floating outreach on six out of seven QuIRC-SA quality domains. Service users had a high prevalence of severe self-neglect (57%) and vulnerability to exploitation (37%). Those in supported housing (25%) and floating outreach (20%) experienced more crime than those in residential care (4%) but had greater autonomy. Residential care was the most expensive service (mean cost per resident per week was £581 for residential care, £261 for supported housing and £66 for floating outreach) but supported users with the greatest needs. After adjusting for clinical differences, quality of life was similar for users of supported housing and residential care (mean difference –0.138, 95% confidence interval –0.402 to 0.126; p = 0.306), whereas autonomy was greater for supported housing users (mean difference 0.145, 95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.279; p = 0.035). Qualitative interviews showed that staff and service users shared an understanding of service goals and what constituted effective support. After adjusting for clinical differences, those in floating outreach were more likely to move on successfully at 30 months’ follow-up than those in residential care [odds ratio (OR) 7.96; p &lt; 0.001] and supported housing (OR 2.74; p &lt; 0.001), and this was more likely for users of supported housing than residential care (OR 2.90; p = 0.04). Successful move-on was positively associated with scores on two QuIRC-SA domains: the degree to which the service promoted ‘human rights’ (e.g. facilitating access to advocacy) and ‘recovery-based practice’ (e.g. holding therapeutic optimism and providing collaborative, individualised care planning). Service use costs for those who moved on were significantly lower than for those who did not. Recruitment in the feasibility trial was difficult: 1432 people were screened but only eight were randomised. Barriers included concerns about accommodation being decided at random and a perceived lack of equipoise among clinicians who felt that individuals needed to ‘step down’ from supported housing to floating outreach services. Conclusions We did not find clear evidence on the most effective model(s) of mental health supported accommodation. Indeed, our feasibility study suggests that trials comparing effectiveness cannot be conducted in this country. A range of options are required to provide appropriate support to individuals with differing needs. Future work Future research in this field requires alternatives to trials. Service planners should be guided by the mental health needs of the local population and the pros and cons of the different services that our study identified, rather than purely financial drivers. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19689576. Funding This programme was funded by the National Institute for Heath Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The fundholders are Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust and the research is a collaboration between University College London, Queen Mary University of London, King’s College London, the University of Ulster and Durham University. The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0610-10097

Clinical outcomes and costs for people with complex psychosis; a naturalistic prospective cohort study of mental health rehabilitation service users in England.

BACKGROUND: Mental health rehabilitation services in England focus on people with complex psychosis. This group tend to have lengthy hospital admissions due to the severity of their problems and, despite representing only 10-20 % of all those with psychosis, they absorb 25-50 % of the total mental health budget. Few studies have investigated the effectiveness of these services and there is little evidence available to guide clinicians working in this area. As part of a programme of research into inpatient mental health rehabilitation services, we carried out a prospective study to investigate longitudinal outcomes and costs for patients of these services and the predictors of better outcome. METHOD: Inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England that scored above average (median) on a standardised quality assessment tool used in a previous national survey were eligible for the study. Unit quality was reassessed and costs of care and patient characteristics rated using standardised tools at recruitment. Multivariable regression modelling was used to investigate the relationship between service quality, patient characteristics and the following clinical outcomes at 12 month follow-up: social function; length of admission in the rehabiliation unit; successful community discharge (without readmission or community placement breakdown) and costs of care. RESULTS: Across England, 50 units participated and 329 patients were followed over 12 months (94 % of those recruited). Service quality was not associated with patients' social function or length of admission (median 16 months) at 12 months but most patients were successfully discharged (56 %) or ready for discharge (14 %), with associated reductions in the costs of care. Factors associated with successful discharge were the recovery orientation of the service (OR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.00-1.08), and patients' activity (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01-1.05) and social skills (OR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.04-1.24) at recruitment. CONCLUSION: Inpatient mental health rehabilitation services in England are able to successfully discharge over half their patients within 18 months, reducing the costs of care for this complex group. Provision of recovery orientated practice that promotes patients' social skills and activities may further enhance the effectiveness of these services

Context, mechanisms and outcomes in end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia: family carers perspective

Background: Keeping people living with advanced dementia in their usual place of residence is becoming a key governmental goal but to achieve this, family carers and health care professionals must negotiate how to provide optimal care. Previously, we reported a realist analysis of the health care professional perspective. Here, we report on family carer perspectives. We aimed to understand the similarities and differences between the two perspectives, gain insights into how the interdependent roles of family carers and HCPs can be optimised, and make recommendations for policy and practice. Method: Qualitative study using a realist approach in which we used the criteria from guidance on optimal palliative care in advanced dementia to examine key contexts, mechanisms and outcomes highlighted by family carers. Results: The themes and views of family caregivers resonate with those of health care professionals. Their overlapping anxieties related to business-driven care homes, uncertainty of families when making EOL decisions and the importance of symptom management referring to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes, respectively. Contexts specific to family carers were ad hoc information about services, dementia progression and access to funding. Not all family carers identified dementia as terminal, but many recognised the importance of continuity of care and knowing the wishes of the person with dementia. New mechanisms included specific resources for improving EOL care and barriers to discussing and planning for future care. Family carers identified the importance of comfort, being present, the meeting of basic care needs and feeling the right decisions have been made as good outcomes of care. Conclusions: Family carers and health care professionals share similar concerns about the challenges to good EOL dementia care. Better understanding of the effects of dementia at the advanced stages would improve confidence in EOL care and reduce uncertainty in decision making for family carers and health care professionals