The association between academic pressure and adolescent mental health problems: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Academic pressure is a potential contributor to adolescent mental health problems, but international evidence on this association has never been synthesised. METHODS: We conducted the first systematic review of the association between academic pressure and adolescent depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidality, suicide attempts and suicide. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science (core collection) up to November 24, 2022, for studies of school-going children or adolescents, which measured academic pressure or timing within the school year as the exposure and depression, anxiety, self-harm, or suicidal ideation, attempts or suicide as outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the evidence. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021232702). RESULTS: We included 52 studies. Most studies assessed mixed anxiety and depressive symptoms (n = 20) or depressive symptoms (n = 19). Forty-eight studies found evidence of a positive association between academic pressure or timing within the school year and at least one mental health outcome. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were cross-sectional (n = 39), adjusted for a narrow range of confounders or had other limitations which limited the strength of causal inferences. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that academic pressure is a potential candidate for public health interventions which could prevent adolescent mental health problems. Large population-based cohort studies are needed to investigate whether academic pressure is a causal risk factor that should be targeted in school- and policy-based interventions. FUNDING: UCL Health of the Public; Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund

Clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with complex emotional needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis

INTRODUCTION: The need to improve the quality of community mental health services for people with Complex Emotional Needs (CEN) (who may have a diagnosis of 'personality disorder') is recognised internationally and has become a renewed policy priority in England. Such improvement requires positive engagement from clinicians across the service system, and their perspectives on achieving good practice need to be understood. AIM: To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice, and what helps or prevents it being achieved, in community mental health services for people with CEN. METHODS: Six bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since 2003 and supplementary citation tracking was conducted. Studies that used any recognised qualitative method and reported clinician experiences and perspectives on community-based mental health services for adults with CEN were eligible for this review, including generic and specialist settings. Meta-synthesis was used to generate and synthesise over-arching themes across included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers were eligible for inclusion, most with samples given a 'personality disorder' diagnosis. Six over-arching themes were identified: 1. The use and misuse of diagnosis; 2. The patient journey into services: nowhere to go; 3. Therapeutic relationships: connection and distance; 4. The nature of treatment: not doing too much or too little; 5. Managing safety issues and crises: being measured and proactive; 6. Clinician and wider service needs: whose needs are they anyway? The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. DISCUSSION: Through summarising the literature on clinician perspectives on good practice for people with CEN, over-arching priorities were identified on which there appears to be substantial consensus. In their focus on needs such as for a long-term perspective on treatment journeys, high quality and consistent therapeutic relationships, and a balanced approach to safety, clinician priorities are mainly congruent with those found in studies on service user views. They also identify clinician needs that should be met for good care to be provided, including for supervision, joint working and organisational support

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs:a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020. RESULTS: We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group

Interventions to improve social circumstances of people with mental health conditions: a rapid evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND: Poor social circumstances can induce, exacerbate and prolong symptoms of mental health conditions, while having a mental health condition can also lead to worse social outcomes. Many people with mental health conditions prioritise improvement in social and functional outcomes over reduction in clinical symptoms. Interventions that improve social circumstances in this population should thus be considered a priority for research and policy. METHODS: This rapid evidence synthesis reports on randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve social circumstances across eight social domains (Housing and homelessness; money and basic needs; work and education; social isolation and connectedness; family, intimate and caring relationships; victimisation and exploitation; offending; and rights, inclusion and citizenship) in people with mental health conditions. Economic evaluations were also identified. A comprehensive, stepped search approach of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted. RESULTS: One systematic review and 102 randomised controlled trials were included. We did not find RCT evidence for interventions to improve family, intimate and caring relationships and only one or two trials for each of improving money and basic needs, victimisation and exploitation, and rights, inclusion and citizenship. Evidence from successful interventions in improving homelessness (Housing First) and employment (Individual Placement and Support) suggests that high-intensity interventions which focus on the desired social outcome and provide comprehensive multidisciplinary support could influence positive change in social circumstances of people with mental health conditions. Objective social isolation could be improved using a range of approaches such as supported socialisation and social skills training but interventions to reduce offending showed few benefits. Studies with cost and cost-effectiveness components were generally supportive of interventions to improve housing and vocational outcomes. More research is needed to ensure that social circumstances accompanied by high risks of further exacerbation of mental health conditions are adequately addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a large body of literature examining how to support some aspects of life for people with mental health conditions, more high-quality evidence is required in other social domains. Integration into mental health services of interventions targeting social circumstances could significantly improve a number of social outcomes

Impact on mental health care and on mental health service users of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods survey of UK mental health care staff

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users. METHODS: We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data. RESULTS: 2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care. CONCLUSION: This overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted

Adult mental health provision in England : a national survey of acute day units

Background Acute Day Units (ADUs) exist in some English NHS Trusts as an alternative to psychiatric inpatient admission. However, there is a lack of information about the number, configuration, and functioning of such units, and about the extent to which additional units might reduce admissions. This cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis of ADUs aimed to identify, categorise, and describe Acute Day Units (ADUs) in England. Methods English NHS Mental Health Trusts with ADUs were identified in a mapping exercise, and a questionnaire was distributed to ADU managers. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct models of service, and descriptive statistics are given to summarise the results of the survey questions. Results Two types of service were identified by the cluster analysis: NHS (n = 27; and voluntary sector services (n = 18). Under a third of NHS Trusts have access to ADUs. NHS services typically have multi-disciplinary staff teams, operate during office hours, offer a range of interventions (medication, physical checks, psychological interventions, group sessions, peer support), and had a median treatment period of 30 days. Voluntary sector services had mostly non-clinically qualified staff, and typically offered supportive listening on a one-off, drop-in basis. Nearly all services aim to prevent or reduce inpatient admissions. Voluntary sector services had more involvement by service users and carers in management and running of the service than NHS services. Conclusions The majority of NHS Trusts do not provide ADUs, despite their potential to reduce inpatient admissions. Further research of ADUs is required to establish their effectiveness and acceptability to service users, carers, and staff

Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. METHODS: We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. RESULTS: We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. CONCLUSION: Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) : a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness. METHODS: In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13). INTERPRETATION: This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

A bespoke smoking cessation service compared with treatment as usual for people with severe mental ill health: the SCIMITAR+ RCT

BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of smoking among people with severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with SMI to quit smoking could improve their health and longevity, and reduce health inequalities. However, those with SMI are less likely to access and engage with routine smoking cessation services than the general population.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual stop smoking services for people with SMI.DesignA pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care and secondary care mental health services in England.ParticipantsSmokers aged ≥ 18 years with SMI who would like to cut down on or quit smoking.InterventionsA BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported, CO-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were self-reported smoking cessation, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Quit questionnaire. Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 items and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, to assess mental health and body mass index measured at 6 and 12 months post randomisation.ResultsThe trial randomised 526 people (265 to the intervention group, 261 to the usual-care group) aged 19 to 72 years (mean 46 years). About 60% of participants were male. Participants smoked between 3 and 100 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes per day) at baseline. The intervention group had a higher rate of exhaled CO-verified smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months than the usual-care group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 12 months: 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 2.8; adjusted OR 6 months: 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7]. This was not statistically significant at 12 months (p = 0.12) but was statistically significant at 6 months (p = 0.01). In total, 111 serious adverse events were reported (69 in the BSC group and 42 in the usual-care group); the majority were unplanned hospitalisations due to a deterioration in mental health (n = 98). The intervention is likely (57%) to be less costly but more effective than usual care; however, this result was not necessarily associated with participants’ smoking status.LimitationsFollow-up was not blind to treatment allocation. However, the primary outcome included a biochemically verified end point, less susceptible to observer biases. Some participants experienced difficulties in accessing nicotine replacement therapy because of changes in service provision. Efforts were made to help participants access nicotine replacement therapy, but this may have affected participants’ quit attempt.ConclusionsPeople with SMI who received the intervention were more likely to have stopped smoking at 6 months. Although more people who received the intervention had stopped smoking at 12 months, this was not statistically significant.Future workFurther research is needed to establish how quitting can be sustained among people with SMI.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN72955454.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information