What are the expectations and experiences of a GMH research programme delivered in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda? A prospective longitudinal qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: Global health research collaborations between partners in high-income countries and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to generate new evidence, strengthen research capacity, tackle health inequalities and improve outcomes. Previous evaluations of such programmes have identified areas for improvement but consisted only of retrospective experiences. We conducted the first prospective study to assess the initial expectations as well as the final experiences of participants of a global health research programme. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This study adopted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study, 38 participants of a global mental health research programme with partners in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Uganda and the (UK). The interviewees included senior investigators, coordinators and researchers. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were interviewed about their initial expectations at the inception of the research programme and their final experiences at the end. RESULTS: Many of the original expectations were later reported as met or even exceeded. They included experiences of communication, relationships, developed research expertise, further research opportunities and extending networks. However, other expectations were not met or only partially met, mainly on developing local leadership, strengthening institutional research capacity and opportunities for innovation and for mutual learning. Around equity of partnership and ownership of research the views of participants in the UK tended to be more critical than those of partners in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that global health research programmes can achieve several of their aims, and that partners in LMICs feel equity has been established in the partnership despite the imbalance of the funding arrangement. Aims of global health research projects should have a realistic focus and be proportionate to the parameters of the funding arrangement. More resources and longer time scales may be required to address sustainable structural capacity and long-standing local leadership sufficiently

Deep learning type inference

Dynamically typed languages such as JavaScript and Python are increasingly popular, yet static typing has not been totally eclipsed: Python now supports type annotations and languages like TypeScript offer a middle-ground for JavaScript: a strict superset of JavaScript, to which it transpiles, coupled with a type system that permits partially typed programs. However, static typing has a cost: adding annotations, reading the added syntax, and wrestling with the type system to fix type errors. Type inference can ease the transition to more statically typed code and unlock the benefits of richer compile-time information, but is limited in languages like JavaScript as it cannot soundly handle duck-typing or runtime evaluation via eval. We propose DeepTyper, a deep learning model that understands which types naturally occur in certain contexts and relations and can provide type suggestions, which can often be verified by the type checker, even if it could not infer the type initially. DeepTyper, leverages an automatically aligned corpus of tokens and types to accurately predict thousands of variable and function type annotations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that context is key in accurately assigning these types and introduce a technique to reduce overfitting on local cues while highlighting the need for further improvements. Finally, we show that our model can interact with a compiler to provide more than 4,000 additional type annotations with over 95% precision that could not be inferred without the aid of DeepTyper

Adapting DIALOG+ in a School Setting-A Tool to Support Well-being and Resilience in Adolescents Living in Postconflict Areas During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Colombia has a long history of an armed conflict that has severely affected communities with forced internal displacement and violence. Victims of violence and armed conflicts have higher rates of mental health disorders, and children and adolescents are particularly affected. However, the mental health needs of this population are often overlooked, especially in low- and middle-Income countries, where scarcity of resources exacerbates the problem that has been further compounded by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, special attention should be paid to the development of interventions that target this population. OBJECTIVE: Our research aims to adapt an existing patient-centered digital intervention called DIALOG+ from a clinical setting to an educational setting using stakeholders' (teachers' and students') perspectives. We aim to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and estimated effect of implementing this intervention as a tool for the identification and mobilization of personal and social resources to mitigate the impact of social difficulties and to promote mental well-being. METHODS: We will conduct an exploratory mixed methods study in public schools of postconflict areas in Tolima, Colombia. The study consists of 3 phases: adaptation, exploration, and consolidation of the DIALOG+ tool. The adaptation phase will identify possible changes that the intervention requires on the basis of data from focus groups with teachers and students. The exploration phase will be an exploratory cluster randomized trial with teachers and school counselors to assess the acceptability, feasibility, and estimated effect of DIALOG+ for adolescents in school settings. Adolescents' data about mental health symptoms and wellness will be collected before and after DIALOG+ implementation. During this phase, teachers or counselors who were part of the intervention group will share their opinions through the think-aloud method. Lastly, the consolidation phase will consist of 2 focus groups with teachers and students to discuss their experiences and to understand acceptability. RESULTS: Study recruitment was completed in March 2022, and follow-up is anticipated to last through November 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and estimated effect of DIALOG+ for adolescents in postconflict school settings in Colombia. The use of this technology-supported tool aims to support interactions between teachers or counselors and students and to provide an effective student-centered communication guide. This is an innovative approach in both the school and the postconflict contexts that could help improve the mental health and wellness of adolescents in vulnerable zones in Colombia. Subsequent studies will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of DIALOG+ in an educational context as a viable option to reduce the gap and inequities of mental health care access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN14396374; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14396374?q=ISRCTN14396374. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40286

Are trials of psychological and psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia and psychosis included in the NICE guidelines pragmatic? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The NICE clinical guidelines on psychosocial interventions for the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis in adults are based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may not be studies with a pragmatic design, leading to uncertainty on applicability or recommendations to everyday clinical practice. AIM: To assess the level of pragmatism of the evidence used to develop the NICE guideline for psychosocial interventions in psychoses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic and critical appraisal of RCTs used to develop the 'psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions' section of the NICE guideline on the treatment and management of psychosis and schizophrenia in adults, published in 2014. For each study we assessed pragmatism using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The mean score of PRECIS-2, averaging across nine domains, was calculated to describe the level of pragmatism of each individual study. RESULTS: A total of 143 studies were included in the analysis. Based on the PRECIS-2 tool, 16.8% were explanatory, 33.6% pragmatic, and 49.7% were rated in an intermediate category. Compared to explanatory studies, pragmatic studies showed a lower risk of bias. Additionally, pragmatism did not significantly improve over time, and no associations were found between pragmatism and a number of trial characteristics. However, studies with a UK leading investigator had the highest mean score of pragmatism. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), art therapy, family intervention, psychoeducation, and adherence therapy, showed the higher average pragmatism scores. CONCLUSIONS: Two third of studies used to produce NICE recommendations on psychosocial interventions for the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis in adults are based on studies that did not employ a pragmatic design

Protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study testing a primary care intervention to promote engagement in an online health community for adults with troublesome asthma

Introduction: In the UK, approximately 4.3 million adults have asthma, with one-third experiencing poor asthma control, affecting their quality of life, and increasing their healthcare use. Interventions promoting emotional/behavioural self-management can improve asthma control and reduce comorbidities and mortality. Integration of online peer support into primary care services to foster self-management is a novel strategy. We aim to co-design and evaluate an intervention for primary care clinicians to promote engagement with an asthma online health community (OHC). Our protocol describes a ‘survey leading to a trial’ design as part of a mixed-methods, non-randomised feasibility study to test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Methods and analysis: Adults on the asthma registers of six London general practices (~3000 patients) will be invited to an online survey, via text messages. The survey will collect data on attitudes towards seeking online peer support, asthma control, anxiety, depression, quality of life, information on the network of people providing support with asthma and demographics. Regression analyses of the survey data will identify correlates/predictors of attitudes/receptiveness towards online peer support. Patients with troublesome asthma, who (in the survey) expressed interest in online peer support, will be invited to receive the intervention, aiming to reach a recruitment target of 50 patients. Intervention will involve a one-off, face-to-face consultation with a practice clinician to introduce online peer support, sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, and encourage OHC engagement. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 3 months post intervention and analysed with primary care and OHC engagement data. Recruitment, intervention uptake, retention, collection of outcomes, and OHC engagement will be assessed. Interviews with clinicians and patients will explore experiences of the intervention. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NE/0182). Written consent will be obtained before intervention receipt and interview participation. Findings will be shared via dissemination to general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration number: NCT05829265

The same or different psychiatrists for in- and out-patient treatment? A multi-country natural experiment.

AimsA core question in the debate about how to organise mental healthcare is whether in- and out-patient treatment should be provided by the same (personal continuity) or different psychiatrists (specialisation). The controversial debate drives costly organisational changes in several European countries, which have gone in opposing directions. The existing evidence is based on small and low-quality studies which tend to favour whatever the new experimental organisation is.We compared 1-year clinical outcomes of personal continuity and specialisation in routine care in a large scale study across five European countries. METHODS: This is a 1-year prospective natural experiment conducted in Belgium, England, Germany, Italy and Poland. In all these countries, both personal continuity and specialisation exist in routine care. Eligible patients were admitted for psychiatric in-patient treatment (18 years of age), and clinically diagnosed with a psychotic, mood or anxiety/somatisation disorder.Outcomes were assessed 1 year after the index admission. The primary outcome was re-hospitalisation and analysed for the full sample and subgroups defined by country, and different socio-demographic and clinical criteria. Secondary outcomes were total number of inpatient days, involuntary re-admissions, adverse events and patients' social situation. Outcomes were compared through mixed regression models in intention-to-treat analyses. The study is registered (ISRCTN40256812). RESULTS: We consecutively recruited 7302 patients; 6369 (87.2%) were followed-up. No statistically significant differences were found in re-hospitalisation, neither overall (adjusted percentages: 38.9% in personal continuity, 37.1% in specialisation; odds ratio = 1.08; confidence interval 0.94-1.25; p = 0.28) nor for any of the considered subgroups. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Whether the same or different psychiatrists provide in- and out-patient treatment appears to have no substantial impact on patient outcomes over a 1-year period. Initiatives to improve long-term outcomes of psychiatric patients may focus on aspects other than the organisation of personal continuity v. specialisation.European Commission Seventh Framework Programme. Grant agreement 60264

The same or different psychiatrists for in- and out-patient treatment? A multi-country natural experiment - ADDENDUM.

ADDENDU

Predictors of personal continuity of care of patients with severe mental illness: A comparison across five European countries.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, at discharge from a psychiatric hospital, patients with severe mental illness may be exposed to one of two main care approaches: personal continuity, where one clinician is responsible for in- and outpatient care, and specialisation, where various clinicians are. Such exposure is decided through patient-clinician agreement or at the organisational level, depending on the country's health system. Since personal continuity would be more suitable for patients with complex psychosocial needs, the aim of this study was to identify predictors of patients' exposure to care approaches in different European countries. METHODS: Data were collected on 7302 psychiatric hospitalised patients in 2015 in Germany, Poland, and Belgium (patient-level exposure); and in the UK and Italy (organisational-level exposure). At discharge, patients were exposed to one of the care approaches according to usual practice. Putative predictors of exposure at patients' discharge were assessed in both groups of countries. RESULTS: Socially disadvantaged patients were significantly more exposed to personal continuity. In all countries, the main predictor of exposure was the admission hospital, except in Germany, where having a diagnosis of psychosis and a higher education status were predictors of exposure to personal continuity. In the UK, hospitals practising personal continuity had a more socially disadvantaged patient population. CONCLUSION: Even in countries where exposure is decided through patient-clinician agreement, it was the admission hospital, not patient characteristics, that predicted exposure to care approaches. Nevertheless, organisational decisions in hospitals tend to expose socially disadvantaged patients to personal continuity.European Commission’s 7th Framework Programm.e Grant agreement number 602645

Service user experiences of REFOCUS: a process evaluation of a pro-recovery complex intervention

Purpose: Policy is increasingly focused on implementing a recovery-orientation within mental health services, yet the subjective experience of individuals receiving a pro-recovery intervention is under-studied. The aim of this study was to explore the service user experience of receiving a complex, pro-recovery intervention (REFOCUS), which aimed to encourage the use of recovery-supporting tools and support recovery-promoting relationships. Methods: Interviews (n=24) and two focus groups (n=13) were conducted as part of a process evaluation and included purposive sample of service users who received the complex, pro-recovery intervention within the REFOCUS randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN02507940). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Participants reported that the intervention supported the development of an open and collaborative relationship with staff, with new conversations around values, strengths and goals. This was experienced as hope-inspiring and empowering. However, others described how the recovery tools were used without context, meaning participants were unclear of their purpose and did not see their benefit. During the interviews, some individuals struggled to report any new tasks or conversations occurring during the intervention. Conclusion: Recovery-supporting tools can support the development of a recovery-promoting relationship, which can contribute to positive outcomes for individuals. The tools should be used, in a collaborative and flexible manner. Information exchanged around values, strengths and goals should be used in care-planning. As some service users struggled to report their experience of the intervention, alternative evaluation approaches need to be considered if the service user experience is to be fully captured