Triple trauma, double uncertainty, and a singular imperative to address the mental health crises within asylum-seekers and refugees system: a commentary on Hvidtfeldt et al. (2021)

The current geo-political crisis around the world is a stark reminder of the impact of war and displacement on the lives of individuals. In 2020, the UN Refugee Agency estimated that over 1% of the world’s population were forcibly displaced persons (82.4 million people) including 26.4 million refugees and 4.1 million asylum seekers [1]. Estimates suggest that the number of forcibly displaced people has continued to rise over the past year, reaching 84 million by mid-2021, and rising with ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Ukraine, and more. The rising number of forcibly displaced people adds urgency to ensuring the human rights, health, and dignity of those forced to leave their homes

What is the impact of research champions on integrating research in mental health clinical practice?:A quasiexperimental study in South London, UK

OBJECTIVES: Key challenges for mental health healthcare professionals to implement research alongside clinical activity have been highlighted, such as insufficient time to apply research skills and lack of support and resources. We examined the impact of employing dedicated staff to promote research in community mental health clinical settings. DESIGN: Quasiexperiment before and after study. SETTING: South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 4455 patients receiving care from 15 community mental health teams between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients approached for research participation in clinical services where research champions were present (intervention group), and where research champions were not present (comparison group). RESULTS: Patients in the intervention group were nearly six times more likely to be approached for research participation (Adj. OR=5.98; 95% CI 4.96 to 7.22). CONCLUSIONS: Investing in staff that promote and drive research in clinical services increases opportunities for patients to hear about and engage in clinical research studies. However, investment needs to move beyond employing short-term staff

Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of delay to and length of stay with early intervention for psychosis service: findings from the CRIS-FEP study

Purpose We investigated the influence of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on delay to early intervention service (EIS) and the length of stay (LOS) with EIS. Methods We used incidence data linked to the Clinical Record Interactive Search—First Episode Psychosis (CRIS-FEP) study. We followed the patients from May 2010 to March 2016. We performed multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios of delay to EIS. Negative binomial regression was used to determine LOS with EIS by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, controlling for confounders. Results 343 patients were eligible for an EIS, 34.1% of whom did not receive the service. Overall, the median delay to EIS was 120 days (IQR; 15–1668); and the median LOS was 130.5 days (IQR 0–663). We found that women (adj.HR 0.58; 95%C I 0.42–0.78), living alone (adj.HR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.43–0.92) and ethnicity (‘Other’: adj.HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.98) were associated with prolonged delay to EIS. However, family involvement in help-seeking for psychosis (adj.HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01–1.85) was strongly associated with a shorter delay to EIS. Patients who have used mental health services previously also experienced long delays to EIS. Conclusions Our analyses highlight the link between sociodemographic status, help-seeking behaviours, and delay to EIS. Our findings also show the vulnerability faced by those with a previous mental health problem who later develop psychosis in receiving specialist treatment for psychosis. Initiatives that ameliorate indicators of social disadvantage are urgently needed to reduce health inequalities and improve clinical outcomes

Only a small proportion of patients with first episode psychosis come via prodromal services: A retrospective survey of a large UK mental health programme

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) who had first presented to prodromal services with an "at risk mental state" (ARMS) before making the transition to psychosis. We set out to identify the proportion of patients with a FEP who had first presented to prodromal services in the ARMS state, and to compare these FEP patients with FEP patients who did not have prior contact with prodromal services. METHODS: In this study information on 338 patients aged ≤37 years who presented to mental health services between 2010 and 2012 with a FEP was examined. The data on pathways to care, clinical and socio-demographic characteristics were extracted from the Biomedical Research Council Case Register for the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. RESULTS: Over 2 years, 14 (4.1% of n = 338) young adults presented with FEP and had been seen previously by the prodromal services. These ARMS patients were more likely to enter their pathway to psychiatric care via referral from General Practice, be born in the UK and to have had an insidious mode of illness onset than FEP patients without prior contact with the prodromal services. CONCLUSIONS: In the current pathways to care configuration, prodromal services are likely to prevent only a few at-risk individuals from transitioning to psychosis even if effective preventative treatments become available

Compulsory admission at first presentation to services for psychosis: does ethnicity still matter? Findings from two population-based studies of first episode psychosis

Objectives Compared with the majority population, those from minority ethnic groups in the UK are more likely to be admitted compulsorily during a first episode of psychosis (FEP). We investigated whether these disparities in pathways in to care continue. Methods We analysed data from two first episode psychosis studies, conducted in the same geographical area in south London 15 years apart: the Aetiology and Ethnicity in Schizophrenia and Other Psychosis (AESOP) and the Clinical Record Interactive Search-First Episode Psychosis (CRIS-FEP) studies. The inclusion/exclusion criteria for case ascertainment for first episode psychosis were identical across the two studies. We performed multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds of compulsory admission by ethnic group, controlling for confounders. Participants Two hundred sixty-six patients with first episode psychosis, aged 18–64 years, who presented to mental health services in south London in 1997–1999 and 446 with FEP who presented in 2010–2012. Results When the two samples were compared, ethnic differences in compulsory admission appear to have remained the same for black African patients, i.e. three times higher than white British in both samples: AESOP (adj. OR = 3.96; 95% CI = 1.80–8.71) vs. CRIS-FEP (adj. OR = 3.12; 95% CI = 1.52–6.35). Black Caribbean patients were three times more likely to be compulsorily admitted in AESOP (adj. OR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.56–6.54). This was lower in the CRIS-FEP sample (adj. OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.71–3.98) and did not meet conventional levels for statistical significance. Conclusion Ethnicity is strongly associated with compulsory admissions at first presentation for psychosis with evidence of heterogeneity across groups, which deserves further research

Identifying First Episodes of Psychosis in Psychiatric Patient Records using Machine Learning

Natural language processing is being pressed into use to facilitate the selection of cases for medical research in electronic health record databases, though study inclusion criteria may be complex, and the linguistic cues indicating eligibility may be subtle. Finding cases of first episode psychosis raised a number of problems for automated approaches, providing an opportunity to explore how machine learning technologies might be used to overcome them. A system was delivered that achieved an AUC of 0.85, enabling 95% of relevant cases to be identified whilst halving the work required in manually reviewing cases. The techniques that made this possible are presented

Medication optimisation in severe mental illness (MEDIATE):protocol for a realist review

INTRODUCTION: Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. People living with SMI often receive complex medication regimens. Optimising these regimens can be challenging. Non-adherence is common and addressing it requires a collaborative approach to decision making. MEDIATE uses a realist approach with extensive engagement with experts-by-experience to make sense of the complexities and identify potential solutions.Realist research is used to unpack and explain complexity using programme theory/theories that contain causal explanations of outcomes, expressed as context-mechanism-outcome-configurations. The programme theory/theories will enable MEDIATE to address its aim of understanding what works, for whom, in what circumstances, to optimise medication use with people living with SMI. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: MEDIATE will be conducted over six stages. In stage 1, we will collaborate with our service user/family carer lived experience group (LEG) and practitioner stakeholder group (SG), to determine the focus. In stage 2, we will develop initial programme theories for what needs to be done, by whom, how and why, and in what contexts to optimise medication use. In stage 3, we will develop and run searches to identify secondary data to refine our initial programme theories.Stage 4 involves selection and appraisal: documents will be screened by title, abstract/keywords and full text against inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 5, relevant data will extracted, recorded and coded. Data will be analysed using a realist logic with input from the LEG and SG. Finally, in stage 6, refined programme theories will be developed, identifying causal explanations for key outcomes and the strategies required to change contexts to trigger the key mechanisms that produce these outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary data will not be collected, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. MEDIATE will be disseminated via publications, conferences and form the basis for future grant applications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021280980