Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment. METHODS: The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617). FINDINGS: Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10-30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10-35%) for the full sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits. IMPLICATIONS: While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives.

Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab (OxPPL) developed open-access web-based summaries of mental health care guidelines (OxPPL guidance) in key areas such as digital approaches and telepsychiatry, suicide and self-harm, domestic violence and abuse, perinatal care, and vaccine hesitancy and prioritization in the context of mental illness, to inform timely clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the practice of creating evidence-based health guidelines during health emergencies using the OxPPL guidance as an example. An international network of clinical sites and colleagues (in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) including clinicians, researchers, and experts by experience aimed to (1) evaluate the clinical impact of the OxPPL guidance, as an example of an evidence-based summary of guidelines; (2) review the literature for other evidence-based summaries of COVID-19 guidelines regarding mental health care; and (3) produce a framework for response to future global health emergencies. METHODS: The impact and clinical utility of the OxPPL guidance were assessed using clinicians' feedback via an international survey and focus groups. A systematic review (protocol registered on Open Science Framework) identified summaries or syntheses of guidelines for mental health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the accuracy of the methods used in the OxPPL guidance by identifying any resources that the guidance had not included. RESULTS: Overall, 80.2% (146/182) of the clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the OxPPL guidance answered important clinical questions, 73.1% (133/182) stated that the guidance was relevant to their service, 59.3% (108/182) said that the guidelines had or would have a positive impact on their clinical practice, 42.9% (78/182) that they had shared or would share the guidance, and 80.2% (146/182) stated that the methodology could be used during future health crises. The focus groups found that the combination of evidence-based knowledge, clinical viewpoint, and visibility was crucial for clinical implementation. The systematic review identified 2543 records, of which 2 syntheses of guidelines met all the inclusion criteria, but only 1 (the OxPPL guidance) used evidence-based methodology. The review showed that the OxPPL guidance had included the majority of eligible guidelines, but 6 were identified that had not been included. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified an unmet need for web-based, evidence-based mental health care guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The OxPPL guidance was evaluated by clinicians as having a real-world clinical impact. Robust evidence-based methodology and expertise in mental health are necessary, but easy accessibility is also needed, and digital technology can materially help. Further health emergencies are inevitable and now is the ideal time to prepare, including addressing the training needs of clinicians, patients, and carers, especially in areas such as telepsychiatry and digital mental health. For future planning, guidance should be widely disseminated on an international platform, with allocated resources to support adaptive updates.

Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: Participation in clinical research is associated with better patient outcomes and higher staff retention and satisfaction rates. Nevertheless, patient recruitment to mental health studies is challenging due to a reliance on clinician or patient referrals (standard approach). To empower patients and make healthcare research more equitable, we explored a novel researcher-led approach, called 'Count Me In' (CMI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 12-month implementation of CMI in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: CMI was launched in August 2021 in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England. Patients (aged 18+) learnt about CMI at their initial clinical appointment. Unless they opted out, they became contactable for research (via research informatics searches). FINDINGS: After 12 months, 368 patients opted out and 22 741 became contactable through CMI, including 2716 through the standard approach and 20 025 through electronic searches (637% increase). Of those identified via electronic searches, 738 were contacted about specific studies and 270 consented to participate. Five themes were identified based on patient and staff experiences of CMI: 'level of awareness and accessibility of CMI', 'perceptions of research and perceived engagement with CMI', 'inclusive research practice', 'engagement and incentives for research participation', and 'relationships between clinical and research settings'. CONCLUSIONS: CMI (vs standard) led to a larger and diverse patient cohort and was favoured by patients and staff. Yet a shift in the NHS research culture is needed to ensure that this diversity translates to actual research participation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Through collaboration with other NHS Trusts and services, key funders (National Institute for Health and Care Research) and new national initiatives (Office for Life Sciences Mental Health Mission), CMI has the potential to address recruitment challenges through rapid patient recruitment into time-sensitive country-wide studies.

Evaluation of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic across service users, carers and clinicians: an international mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide uptake of telepsychiatry accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evaluation of the opinions, preferences and attitudes to telepsychiatry from service users, carers and clinicians in order to understand how telepsychiatry can be best used in the peri/post-COVID-19 era. METHODS: This mixed-methods, multicentre, international study of telepsychiatry was set in two sites in England and two in Italy. Survey questionnaires and focus group topic guides were co-produced for each participant group (service users, carers and clinicians). FINDINGS: In the UK, 906 service users, 117 carers and 483 clinicians, and in Italy, 164 service users, 56 carers and 72 clinicians completed the surveys. In all, 17 service users/carers and 14 clinicians participated in focus groups. Overall, telepsychiatry was seen as convenient in follow-ups with a specific purpose such as medication reviews; however, it was perceived as less effective for establishing a therapeutic relationship or for assessing acutely disturbed mental states. In contrast to clinicians, most service users and carers indicated that telepsychiatry had not improved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most service users and carers reported that the choice of appointment modality was most often determined by the service or clinician. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There were circumstances in which telepsychiatry was seen as more suitable than others and clear differences in clinician, carer and service user perspectives on telepsychiatry. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: All stakeholders should be actively engaged in determining a hybrid model of care according to clinical features and service user and carer preferences. Clinicians should be engaged in training programmes on telepsychiatry.

Impact of COVID-19 on telepsychiatry at the service and individual patient level across two UK NHS mental health Trusts.

BACKGROUND: The effects of COVID-19 on the shift to remote consultations remain to be properly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent, nature and clinical impact of the use of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it with the data in the same period of the 2 years before the outbreak. METHODS: We used deidentified electronic health records routinely collected from two UK mental health Foundation Trusts (Oxford Health (OHFT) and Southern Health (SHFT)) between January and September in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We considered three outcomes: (1) service activity, (2) in-person versus remote modalities of consultation and (3) clinical outcomes using Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) data. HoNOS data were collected from two cohorts of patients (cohort 1: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2018, 2019 and 2020; cohort 2: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2019 and 2020), and analysed in clusters using superclasses (namely, psychotic, non-psychotic and organic), which are used to assess overall healthcare complexity in the National Health Service. All statistical analyses were done in Python. FINDINGS: Mental health service activity in 2020 increased in all scheduled community appointments (by 15.4% and 5.6% in OHFT and SHFT, respectively). Remote consultations registered a 3.5-fold to 6-fold increase from February to June 2020 (from 4685 to a peak of 26 245 appointments in OHFT and from 7117 to 24 987 appointments in SHFT), with post-lockdown monthly averages of 23 030 and 22 977 remote appointments/month in OHFT and SHFT, respectively. Video consultations comprised up to one-third of total telepsychiatric services per month from April to September 2020. For patients with dementia, non-attendance rates at in-person appointments were higher than remote appointments (17.2% vs 3.9%). The overall HoNOS cluster value increased only in the organic superclass (clusters 18-21, n=174; p<0.001) from 2019 to 2020, suggesting a specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population of patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The rapid shift to remote service delivery has not reached some groups of patients who may require more tailored management with telepsychiatry.

Informing National Health Service patients about participation in clinical research: A comparison of opt-in and opt-out approaches across the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Recruitment to clinical research in the National Health Service remains challenging. One barrier is accessing patients to discuss research participation. Two general approaches are used in the United Kingdom to facilitate this: an 'opt-in' approach (when clinicians communicate research opportunities to patients) and an 'opt-out' approach (all patients have the right to be informed of relevant research opportunities). No evidence-based data are available, however, to inform the decision about which approach is preferable. This study aimed to collect information from 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' Trusts and identify which of the two approaches is optimal for ensuring National Health Service patients are given opportunities to discuss research participation. METHOD: This sequential mixed methods study comprised three phases: (1) an Appreciative Inquiry across UK Trusts, (2) online surveys and (3) focus groups with National Health Service staff and patients at a representative mental health Trust. RESULTS: The study was conducted between June and October 2019. Out of seven National Health Service Mental Health Trusts contacted (three 'opt-out' and four 'opt-in'), only four took part in phase 1 of the study and three of them were 'opt-out' Trusts. Benefits of an 'opt-out' approach included greater inclusivity of patients and the removal of research gatekeepers, while the involvement of research-active clinicians and established patient-clinician relationships were cited as important to 'opt-in' success. Phases 2 and 3 were conducted at a different Trust (Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust) which was using an 'opt-in' approach. Of 333 staff and member survey responders, 267 (80.2%) favoured moving to an 'opt-out' approach (phase 2). Nineteen staff and 16 patients and carers participated in focus groups (phase 3). Concern was raised by staff regarding the lack of time for clinical research, with clinical work taking precedence over research; patients were concerned about a lack of research activity; all considered research to be beneficial and were supportive of a move to 'opt-out'. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that 'opt-out' is more beneficial than 'opt-in', with the potential to vastly increase patient access to research opportunities and to enable greater equality of information provision for currently marginalised groups. This should ensure that healthcare research is more representative of the entire population, including those with a mental health diagnosis.

Early Childhood Vision Screening in Hawai'i Utilizing a Hand-Held Screener.

The goal of early childhood vision screening is to detect subnormal vision and amblyopic risk factors that threaten visual development so that treatment can be initiated early to yield the highest benefit. Hand-held, portable, instrument-based vision screening devices can be used in children as young as 6 months of age. We assessed the feasibility of hand-held photoscreeners to screen for vision disorders in pre-school children in Hawai'i. A total of 137 preschool children on O'ahu in the "Tutu and Me"/Partners in Development program were screened at 6 different locations using the Plusoptix S12 hand-held photoscreener. Once technical issues were resolved, screening was fast and well tolerated. Possible vision abnormalities were found in 11 of the 137 children (8%). Poor compliance for follow-up with formal vision examination limited our ability to confirm these abnormalities. We conclude that photoscreening has the potential to facilitate early childhood vision screening in Hawai'i. The optimal referral criteria for use in Hawai'i will need to be determined after considering the age of the screening population and the available medical resources in Hawai'i. Early detection of treatable eye disorders has far-reaching benefits for the visual development and long term health and well-being of children. A comprehensive early childhood vision screening program in Hawai'i utilizing automated hand-held photoscreeners may have public health value. Such a program should integrate referral to an eye care professional for confirmation and management of vision disorders of at-risk children found on screening.