Who benefits most from resilience-building groups for 'at-risk' older people? a pilot service-evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Resilience-building interventions have not yet targeted older adults, despite the importance of well-being for maintaining independence and health. The 'My Generation' programme aims to build resilience through greater access to social networks, well-being activities, and psycho-educational support; this paper examines service evaluation data from its pilot implementation to identify factors leading to positive outcomes. METHOD: The 'My Generation' programme comprises eight weekly 2-hour group sessions; each session includes both psychoeducation and a well-being activity. Participants were invited to complete questionnaires at the start and end of the course, and 12 weeks later. These included measures of well-being, loneliness, social connections and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Baseline assessments were completed by 239 older people (average age 71, range 50-97), attending 38 courses in four centres. Most were female (80%), 40% were widowed, 25% divorced/separated and 64% lived alone. Demographics did not differ between those completing post-intervention assessments (N = 137) and those who did not. Compared with normative data, participants had significantly lower well-being and greater feelings of loneliness than age-peers. Significant improvements in well-being, self-efficacy, social connections and one measure of loneliness were evident at post-intervention and follow-up assessments. Improvement in well-being at post-intervention was greater in those who were divorced/separated and who were not carers, and at follow-up in females and those living alone. CONCLUSION: The 'My Generation' package appeared effective in improving well-being, self-efficacy, social connections and aspects of loneliness in at-risk older people. More research is needed to identify the intervention's key components and possible between-centre differences in outcomes.

The Positive and Negative Experiences of 342 Antidepressant Users.

Most efficacy and safety studies about medications adopt a quantitative approach, testing specific hypotheses with restricted samples. This online survey provides additional insights by directly asking people open questions. Thematic analysis was used to explore the responses of 342 antidepressant users to "Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience of taking medication". 59 (17.3%) made exclusively positive comments, 146 (42.7%) purely negative comments and 137 (40.0%) offered a mixture of positive and negative. Positive themes included: daily coping, life-changing/saving and stepping stone. Negative themes included: physical adverse effects, emotional and cognitive blunting, and withdrawal effects. Many participants also commented on relationships with prescribers. Collaboration was particularly valued. Negative sub-themes included failings in relation to information (especially about adverse effects and withdrawal), support, and alternatives. Clinicians have a duty to inform potential antidepressant users about positive and adverse effects, including withdrawal effects.

Staying on, and coming off, antidepressants: The experiences of 752 UK adults.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription rates for antidepressants (ADs) are high and continue to increase, despite evidence of significant adverse effects, including withdrawal symptoms, and marginal benefit relative to placebo only for short-term treatment of major depression. Such high rates seem to be explicable more in terms of long term usage and repeat prescribing rather than by increases in depression or new patients. METHOD: This paper reports the responses of a convenience sample of 752 people who had taken antidepressants, but no other psychiatric drugs, 'within the last two years' and completed the Medications for Mental Health Survey online in the UK. RESULTS: Most participants had either come off antidepressants (34%) or had tried and failed (36%). Of those still taking them 76% had been doing so for at least a year and 36% for five years or more. 26% expected to take them forever. About half (48%) did not have their drugs reviewed at least every three months. Most (65%) had never had a discussion with the prescriber about coming off. Nearly half (45%) of those who had stopped the drugs had done so without consulting their doctor. However, of those who came off after consulting their doctor, the majority (65%) experienced the doctor to be supportive. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are consistent with the idea that high rates are largely explicable by chronic usage, which in turn is partially explained by withdrawal symptoms. Prescribers should strive to establish collaborative relationships in which patients are fully informed about withdrawal effects and their views, about starting and finishing medication, should be explored and valued.

Qualitative Exploration of the Potential for Adverse Events When Using an Online Peer Support Network for Mental Health: Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Online peer support networks are a growing area of mental health support for offering social connection, identity, and support. However, it has been reported that not all individuals have a positive experience on such networks. The potential for adverse events within a moderated online peer support network is a new area of research exploration. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine if use of an online moderated peer networks leads to adverse events for users. METHODS: Four biannual online surveys (October 2014 to March 2016) were conducted by a large national UK mental health charity, with users of their online peer support network exploring personal safety, moderation, experiences on the site, and how the site could be improved. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis by 2 independent researchers using a priori themes: negative experiences of moderation, social exclusion, contagion, negative interactions with other users, online relationships, co-rumination and collusion, and other. RESULTS: In total, 2353 survey responses were logged with 197 (8.37%) documenting an adverse event of negative experience. A dominant theme of negative experiences of moderation emerged (73/197, 37.1%) with evidence of social exclusion (50/197, 25.4%). Reading user posts was shown to be a cause of worry and distress for a few users, and analysis highlighted several instances of depressogenic and emotional contagion as well as some limited evidence of behavioral contagion (46/197, 23.4%). Very limited evidence of co-rumination (1/197, 0.5%) and no evidence of collusion were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of adverse events was identified at low levels in the sample of respondents, although we have no comparison data to indicate if levels are low compared with comparable platforms. Not all users of online peer support networks find them wholly beneficial. Research must explore what works for whom. The next stage of service development should consider which users may be likely to receive no benefit, or even deteriorate, as a result of using the service.

The interpersonal adverse effects reported by 1008 users of antidepressants; and the incremental impact of polypharmacy.

Antidepressant drugs are being prescribed at ever increasing rates internationally, despite marginal benefit compared to placebo and a range of adverse effects. Most studies of adverse effects focus on biological phenomena. This article presents the results of an online survey of 1008 self-selected anti-depressant users in Britain, which asked about five adverse effects in the interpersonal domain. The most commonly reported among participants who took only antidepressants were: Sex Life - 43.7%, Work or Study - 27.0% and Social Life - 23.5%. These rates of interpersonal adverse effects were even higher for the 52% of participants who were also taking one or more other psychiatric drugs. Only about a half (48%) felt they had been given enough information about side effects by the prescriber. Those initially prescribed medication by a psychiatrist were more likely to be on several types of drugs and reported more adverse effects than those whose prescriber was a General Practitioner (GP). Researchers and prescribers are encouraged to pay greater attention to interpersonal adverse effects.