Participatory design to create a VR therapy for psychosis

This paper describes how participatory design was employed in the design of an automated Virtual Reality (VR) psychological therapy (gameChange), putting people with lived experience of psychosis at the heart of the process. Solutions to complex challenges invariably need to include the expertise and ideas of specialists from a broad variety of disciplines and experiences. The design of gameChange relied on the insights of clinical psychologists, programmers, animators, designers, product managers, producers, writers, researchers, 3 D artists, mental health advocates, and people with lived experience of psychosis. This involved a considerable diversity of working cultures, professional disciplines, and vocabulary. A transdisciplinary, participatory design process was established during the project. It allowed for rapid iteration, meaningful input from people with lived experience of psychosis, and delivered a VR psychological therapy with robust cognitive therapeutic principles. The structures put in place to support the different disciplines working together on the design, particularly people with lived experience of psychosis, are detailed in this paper, with examples of how decisions were made and their outcomes. The clinical effectiveness of the gameChange VR therapy is now being tested in a randomized controlled trial with several hundred patients with psychosis. https://gamechangevr.com/intro_video

“It seems impossible that it’s been made so quickly”: a qualitative investigation of concerns about the speed of COVID-19 vaccine development and how these may be overcome

The speed of COVID-19 vaccine development has been identified as a central concern contributing to hesitancy in acceptance. We conducted qualitative interviews to gain a greater understanding into these concerns and to identify what might address them. Twelve qualitative interviews were conducted with participants identifying as hesitant for COVID-19 vaccination and reporting concern about the speed of vaccine development. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used. Concerns about speed comprised the linked themes of i) difficulty understanding the pace, and, ii) worry about the implications for vaccine safety. Uncertainties concerning the pandemic led to a notable desire for credible and understandable information regarding the vaccines, which many participants felt was not available. Four routes to resolving uncertainty about whether to be vaccinated were identified. First, waiting for more information about the vaccines, such as about their contents and impact on transmission. Second, a growing perception that the vaccines must be safe given the large numbers already vaccinated. Third, viewing the vaccines as necessary - even if unappealing - for ending the pandemic. Finally, a feeling that there would be no choice but to have a vaccine. Examples of what might reduce hesitancy were given, including interviews with vaccine developers and knowing others of similar age having safely been vaccinated. The pace of development broke expectations set earlier in the pandemic. This was interpreted negatively due to a perceived lack of credible information. Most participants could envisage ways their concerns could be resolved, enough for them to have a vaccine

Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy versus virtual reality mental relaxation therapy for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (THRIVE): a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in England with mediation analyses

Background: Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem that often do not respond sufficiently to standard pharmacological or psychological treatments. We developed a new brief automated virtual reality (VR) cognitive treatment that has the potential to be used easily in clinical services. We aimed to compare VR cognitive therapy with an alternative VR therapy (mental relaxation), with an emphasis on understanding potential mechanisms of action. Methods: THRIVE was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across four UK National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were included if they were aged 16 years or older, had a persistent (at least 3 months) persecutory delusion held with at least 50% conviction, reported feeling threatened when outside with other people, and had a primary diagnosis from the referring clinical team of a non-affective psychotic disorder. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to either THRIVE VR cognitive therapy or VR mental relaxation, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by severity of delusion. Usual care continued for all participants. Each VR therapy was provided in four sessions over approximately 4 weeks, supported by an assistant psychologist or clinical psychologist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 2 (therapy mid-point), 4 (primary endpoint, end of treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0–100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed the treatment credibility and expectancy of the interventions and the two mechanisms (defence behaviours and safety beliefs) that the cognitive intervention was designed to target. This trial is prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12497310. Findings: From Sept 21, 2018, to May 13, 2021 (with a pause due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020), we recruited 80 participants with persistent persecutory delusions (49 [61%] men, 31 [39%] women, with a mean age of 40 years [SD 13, range 18–73], 64 [80%] White, six [8%] Black, one [1%] Indian, three [4%] Pakistani, and six [8%] other race or ethnicity). We randomly assigned 39 (49%) participants assigned to VR cognitive therapy and 41 (51%) participants to VR mental relaxation. 33 (85%) participants who were assigned to VR cognitive therapy attended all four sessions, and 35 (85%) participants assigned to VR mental relaxation attended all four sessions. We found no significant differences between the two VR interventions in participant ratings of treatment credibility (adjusted mean difference –1·55 [95% CI –3·68 to 0·58]; p=0·15) and outcome expectancy (–0·91 [–3·42 to 1·61]; p=0·47). 77 (96%) participants provided follow-up data at the primary timepoint. Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater improvement in persecutory delusions (adjusted mean difference –2·16 [–12·77 to 8·44]; p=0·69). Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater reduction in use of defence behaviours (adjusted mean difference –0·71 [–4·21 to 2·79]; p=0·69) or a greater increase in belief in safety (–5·89 [–16·83 to 5·05]; p=0·29). There were 17 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial (ten events in seven participants in the VR cognitive therapy group and seven events in five participants in the VR mental relaxation group). Interpretation: The two VR interventions performed similarly, despite the fact that they had been designed to affect different mechanisms. Both interventions had high uptake rates and were associated with large improvements in persecutory delusions but it cannot be determined that the treatments accounted for the change. Immersive technologies hold promise for the treatment of severe mental health problems. However, their use will likely benefit from experimental research on the application of different therapeutic techniques and the effects on a range of potential mechanisms of action.The trial was funded by the Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (MR/P02629X/1). It was also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-2000). DF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. DMC is an Emeritus NIHR Senior Investigator. This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. FW is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (102176/B/13/Z). MS is supported by the European Research Council Grant MoTIVE (742989).Peer ReviewedArticle signat per 23 autors/es: Department of Experimental Psychology (Prof D Freeman DClinPsy, R Lister DClinPsy, F Waite DClinPsych, S Lambe DClinPsy, A Beckley MA, E Bold BSc, L Jenner BA, R Diamond DClinPsych, M Kirkham DClinPsych, E Twivy DClinPsych, C Causier MSc, L Carr BSc, S Saidel MSc, A Rovira PhD, Prof D M Clark DPhil, L Rosebrock PhD), Oxford Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (U Galal MSc, L-M Yu PhD), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK (Prof D Freeman, F Waite, S Lambe, R Diamond, A Rovira, Prof D M Clark, L Rosebrock); Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK (R Lister); Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK (R Day BSc, A Ivins DClinPsych, R Nah DClinPsy); Event Lab, Faculty of Psychology Spain (A Beacco PhD, Prof M Slater DSc), Institute of Neurosciences (Prof M Slater), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (A Beacco); Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (R Nah)Postprint (published version

Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy for people with psychosis: Protocol for a qualitative investigation using peer research methods

BACKGROUND: Many people with psychosis experience difficulties in everyday social situations. Anxiety can make life challenging, leading to withdrawal. Cognitive therapy, using active in vivo learning, enables people to overcome fears. These treatments are not readily available to people with psychosis. Automated virtual reality (VR) therapy is a potential route to increase accessibility. The gameChange automated VR cognitive therapy is designed to help people overcome anxious avoidance and build confidence in everyday social situations. A virtual coach guides the person through the treatment. Understanding user experience is key to facilitating future implementation. Peer research methods, in which people with lived experience of the issues being studied are involved in collecting and analyzing data, may be useful in developing this understanding. This encourages researchers to draw on their lived experience to explore participant perspectives and co-create knowledge. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to use a peer research approach to explore the participant experience of a novel automated VR therapy for anxious social avoidance. This includes understanding (1) the experience of anxious social avoidance in people with psychosis, (2) the experience of the gameChange automated VR cognitive therapy, and (3) any potential impact of the therapy in people’s lives. This will inform future implementation strategies. The secondary objective is to explore how peer research can be used to co-create knowledge. METHODS: Semistructured interviews will be conducted with approximately 25 people with psychosis participating in the gameChange trial (ISRCTN17308399). Participants will be recruited from the five trial centers based in National Health Service mental health trusts across England. Interviews will be conducted by two researchers. One is a peer researcher with similar lived experience to the trial participants. The other has lived experiences of mental health issues that do not directly overlap with those of the trial participants. Interview questions will focus on an individual’s experience of anxious social avoidance, experiences of participating in the gameChange VR therapy, and any changes or impact following therapy. The interview schedule was developed in collaboration with the gameChange Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), comprising 10 project advisors with lived experience of psychosis. Interpretative phenomenological analysis and template analysis will be used to explore individual accounts. The LEAP will contribute to the analysis. RESULTS: Data collection will be conducted from April to September 2021, and analysis will be conducted from June to October 2021. As of September 28, 2021, 20 participants had been interviewed, and coding is underway. CONCLUSIONS: The study, employing a peer research approach, may provide a unique insight into the experiences of anxious social avoidance in people with psychosis and its treatment using automated VR therapy. This will inform potential future implementation of VR automated therapies in mental health services

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes

Estimating the Economic Value of Automated Virtual Reality Cognitive Therapy for Treating Agoraphobic Avoidance in Patients With Psychosis: Findings From the gameChange Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background:An automated virtual reality cognitive therapy (gameChange) has demonstrated its effectiveness to treat agoraphobia in patients with psychosis, especially for high or severe anxious avoidance. Its economic value to the health care system is not yet established.Objective:In this study, we aimed to estimate the potential economic value of gameChange for the UK National Health Service (NHS) and establish the maximum cost-effective price per patient.Methods:Using data from a randomized controlled trial with 346 patients with psychosis (ISRCTN17308399), we estimated differences in health-related quality of life, health and social care costs, and wider societal costs for patients receiving virtual reality therapy in addition to treatment as usual compared with treatment as usual alone. The maximum cost-effective prices of gameChange were calculated based on UK cost-effectiveness thresholds. The sensitivity of the results to analytical assumptions was tested.Results:Patients allocated to gameChange reported higher quality-adjusted life years (0.008 QALYs, 95% CI –0.010 to 0.026) and lower NHS and social care costs (–£105, 95% CI –£1135 to £924) compared with treatment as usual (£1=US $1.28); however, these differences were not statistically significant. gameChange was estimated to be worth up to £341 per patient from an NHS and social care (NHS and personal social services) perspective or £1967 per patient from a wider societal perspective. In patients with high or severe anxious avoidance, maximum cost-effective prices rose to £877 and £3073 per patient from an NHS and personal social services perspective and societal perspective, respectively.Conclusions:gameChange is a promising, cost-effective intervention for the UK NHS and is particularly valuable for patients with high or severe anxious avoidance. This presents an opportunity to expand cost-effective psychological treatment coverage for a population with significant health needs.Trial Registration:ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN17308399; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN1730839

Automated Virtual Reality Cognitive Therapy for People With Psychosis: Protocol for a Qualitative Investigation Using Peer Research Methods

Many people with psychosis experience difficulties in everyday social situations. Anxiety can make life challenging, leading to withdrawal. Cognitive therapy, using active in vivo learning, enables people to overcome fears. These treatments are not readily available to people with psychosis. Automated virtual reality (VR) therapy is a potential route to increase accessibility. The gameChange automated VR cognitive therapy is designed to help people overcome anxious avoidance and build confidence in everyday social situations. A virtual coach guides the person through the treatment. Understanding user experience is key to facilitating future implementation. Peer research methods, in which people with lived experience of the issues being studied are involved in collecting and analyzing data, may be useful in developing this understanding. This encourages researchers to draw on their lived experience to explore participant perspectives and co-create knowledge. The primary objective is to use a peer research approach to explore the participant experience of a novel automated VR therapy for anxious social avoidance. This includes understanding (1) the experience of anxious social avoidance in people with psychosis, (2) the experience of the gameChange automated VR cognitive therapy, and (3) any potential impact of the therapy in people's lives. This will inform future implementation strategies. The secondary objective is to explore how peer research can be used to co-create knowledge. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with approximately 25 people with psychosis participating in the gameChange trial (ISRCTN17308399). Participants will be recruited from the five trial centers based in National Health Service mental health trusts across England. Interviews will be conducted by two researchers. One is a peer researcher with similar lived experience to the trial participants. The other has lived experiences of mental health issues that do not directly overlap with those of the trial participants. Interview questions will focus on an individual's experience of anxious social avoidance, experiences of participating in the gameChange VR therapy, and any changes or impact following therapy. The interview schedule was developed in collaboration with the gameChange Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), comprising 10 project advisors with lived experience of psychosis. Interpretative phenomenological analysis and template analysis will be used to explore individual accounts. The LEAP will contribute to the analysis. Data collection will be conducted from April to September 2021, and analysis will be conducted from June to October 2021. As of September 28, 2021, 20 participants had been interviewed, and coding is underway. The study, employing a peer research approach, may provide a unique insight into the experiences of anxious social avoidance in people with psychosis and its treatment using automated VR therapy. This will inform potential future implementation of VR automated therapies in mental health services. DERR1-10.2196/31742. [Abstract copyright: ©Jessica Bond, Dan Robotham, Alexandra Kenny, Vanessa Pinfold, Thomas Kabir, Humma Andleeb, Michael Larkin, Jennifer L Martin, Susan Brown, Aislinn D Bergin, Ariane Petit, Laina Rosebrock, Sinéad Lambe, Daniel Freeman, Felicity Waite. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 25.10.2021.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes, and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) II

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III):a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre