Study protocol for an adaptive, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) randomised controlled trial of brief remotely delivered psychosocial interventions for people with serious mental health problems who have experienced a recent suicidal crisis: Remote Approaches to Psychosocial Intervention Delivery (RAPID).

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental health problems (SMHP) are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric hospital following contact with crisis services. Admissions can have significant personal costs, be traumatic and are the most expensive form of mental health care. There is an urgent need for treatments to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviours and reduce avoidable psychiatric admissions. METHODS: A multi-stage, multi-arm (MAMS) randomised controlled trial (RCT) with four arms conducted over two stages to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of three psychosocial treatments, compared to treatment as usual (TAU), for people with SMHP who have had recent suicidal crisis. Primary outcome is any psychiatric hospital admissions over a 6-month period. We will assess the impact on suicidal thoughts and behaviour, hope, recovery, anxiety and depression. The remote treatments delivered over 3 months are structured peer support (PREVAIL); a safety planning approach (SAFETEL) delivered by assistant psychologists; and a CBT-based suicide prevention app accessed via a smartphone (BrighterSide). Recruitment is at five UK sites. Stage 1 includes an internal pilot with a priori progression criteria. In stage 1, the randomisation ratio was 1:1:1:2 in favour of TAU. This has been amended to 2:2:3 in favour of TAU following an unplanned change to remove the BrighterSide arm following the release of efficacy data from an independent RCT. Randomisation is via an independent remote web-based randomisation system using randomly permuted blocks, stratified by site. An interim analysis will be performed using data from the first 385 participants from PREVAIL, SAFETEL and TAU with outcome data at 6 months. If one arm is dropped for lack of benefit in stage 2, the allocation ratio of future participants will be 1:1. The expected total sample size is 1064 participants (1118 inclusive of BrighterSide participants). DISCUSSION: There is a need for evidence-based interventions to reduce psychiatric admissions, via reduction of suicidality. Our focus on remote delivery of established brief psychosocial interventions, utilisation of different modalities of delivery that can provide sustainable and scalable solutions, which are also suitable for a pandemic or national crisis context, will significantly advance treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33079589. Registered on June 20, 2022.

Bridging the gap from medical to psychological safety assessment: consensus study in a digital mental health context.

BACKGROUND: Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) that meet the definition of a medical device are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK. The MHRA uses procedures that were originally developed for pharmaceuticals to assess the safety of DMHIs. There is recognition that this may not be ideal, as is evident by an ongoing consultation for reform led by the MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. AIMS: The aim of this study was to generate an experts' consensus on how the medical regulatory method used for assessing safety could best be adapted for DMHIs. METHOD: An online Delphi study containing three rounds was conducted with an international panel of 20 experts with experience/knowledge in the field of UK digital mental health. RESULTS: Sixty-four items were generated, of which 41 achieved consensus (64%). Consensus emerged around ten recommendations, falling into five main themes: Enhancing the quality of adverse events data in DMHIs; Re-defining serious adverse events for DMHIs; Reassessing short-term symptom deterioration in psychological interventions as a therapeutic risk; Maximising the benefit of the Yellow Card Scheme; and Developing a harmonised approach for assessing the safety of psychological interventions in general. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the recommendations provided by this consensus could improve the assessment of safety of DMHIs, making them more effective in detecting and mitigating risk.

Adverse Events Reporting in Digital Interventions Evaluations for Psychosis: A Systematic Literature Search and Individual Level Content Analysis of Adverse Event Reports.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) have significant potential to upscale treatment access to people experiencing psychosis but raise questions around patient safety. Adverse event (AE) monitoring is used to identify, record, and manage safety issues in clinical trials, but little is known about the specific content and context contained within extant AE reports. This study aimed to assess current AE reporting in DHIs. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature search was conducted by the iCharts network (representing academic, clinical, and experts by experience) to identify trials of DHIs in psychosis. Authors were invited to share AE reports recorded in their trials. A content analysis was conducted on the shared reports. STUDY RESULTS: We identified 593 AE reports from 18 DHI evaluations, yielding 19 codes. Only 29 AEs (4.9% of total) were preidentified by those who shared AEs as being related to the intervention or trial procedures. While overall results support the safety of DHIs, DHIs were linked to mood problems and psychosis exacerbation in a few cases. Additionally, 27% of studies did not report information on relatedness for all or at least some AEs; 9.6% of AE reports were coded as unclear because it could not be determined what had happened to participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the safety of DHIs, but AEs must be routinely monitored and evaluated according to best practice. Individual-level analyses of AEs have merit to understand safety in this emerging field. Recommendations for best practice reporting in future studies are provided.

Measurement of Adverse Events in Studies of Digital Health Interventions for Psychosis: Guidance and Recommendations Based on a Literature Search and Framework Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Given the rapid expansion of research into digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental illness (SMI; eg, schizophrenia and other psychosis diagnoses), there is an emergent need for clear safety measures. Currently, measurement and reporting of adverse events (AEs) are inconsistent across studies. Therefore, an international network, iCharts, was assembled to systematically identify and refine a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AE reporting in DHI studies for SMI. DESIGN: The iCharts network comprised experts on DHIs for SMI from seven countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Pakistan, Australia, United States, and China) and various professional backgrounds. Following a literature search, SOPs of AEs were obtained from authors of relevant studies, and from grey literature. RESULTS: A thorough framework analysis of SOPs (n = 32) identified commonalities for best practice for certain domains, along with significant gaps in others; particularly around the classification of AEs during trials, and the provision of training/supervision for research staff in measuring and reporting AEs. Several areas which could lead to the observed inconsistencies in AE reporting and handling were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: The iCharts network developed best-practice guidelines and a practical resource for AE monitoring in DHI studies for psychosis, based on a systematic process which identified common features and evidence gaps. This work contributes to international efforts to standardize AE measurement and reporting in this emerging field, ensuring that safety aspects of DHIs for SMI are well-studied across the translational pathway, with monitoring systems set-up from the outset to support safe implementation in healthcare systems.

Methodological Characteristics and Feasibility of Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies in Psychosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) involves completing multiple surveys over time in daily life, capturing in-the-moment experiences in real-world contexts. EMA use in psychosis studies has surged over several decades. To critically examine EMA use in psychosis research and assist future researchers in designing new EMA studies, this systematic review aimed to summarize the methodological approaches used for positive symptoms in psychosis populations and evaluate feasibility with a focus on completion rates. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Embase databases using search terms related to EMA and psychosis was conducted. Excluding duplicate samples, a meta-analysis was conducted of EMA survey completion rates and meta-regression to examine predictors of completion. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies were included in the review. Characteristics and reporting of EMA methodologies were variable across studies. The meta-mean EMA survey completion computed from the 39 unique studies that reported a mean completion rate was 67.15% (95% CI = 62.3, 71.9), with an average of 86.25% of the sample meeting a one-third EMA completion criterion. No significant predictors of completion were found in the meta-regression. A variety of EMA items were used to measure psychotic experiences, of which few were validated. CONCLUSIONS: EMA methods have been widely applied in psychosis studies using a range of protocols. Completion rates are high, providing clear evidence of feasibility in psychosis populations. Recommendations for reporting in future studies are provided.

Investigating the relationship between specific negative symptoms and metacognitive functioning in psychosis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Disrupted metacognition is implicated in development and maintenance of negative symptoms, but more fine-grained analyses would inform precise treatment targeting for individual negative symptoms. AIMS: This systematic review identifies and examines datasets that test whether specific metacognitive capacities distinctly influence negative symptoms. MATERIALS & METHODS: PsycINFO, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases plus hand searching of relevant articles, journals and grey literature identified quantitative research investigating negative symptoms and metacognition in adults aged 16+ with psychosis. Authors of included articles were contacted to identify unique datasets and missing information. Data were extracted for a risk of bias assessment using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. RESULTS: 85 published reports met criteria and are estimated to reflect 32 distinct datasets and 1623 unique participants. The data indicated uncertainty about the relationship between summed scores of negative symptoms and domains of metacognition, with significant findings indicating correlation coefficients from 0.88 to -0.23. Only eight studies investigated the relationship between metacognition and individual negative symptoms, with mixed findings. Studies were mostly moderate-to-low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: The relationship between negative symptoms and metacognition is rarely the focus of studies reviewed here, and negative symptom scores are often summed. This approach may obscure relationships between metacognitive domains and individual negative symptoms which may be important for understanding how negative symptoms are developed and maintained. CONLCLUSION: Methodological challenges around overlapping participants, variation in aggregation of negative symptom items and types of analyses used, make a strong case for use of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis to further elucidate these relationships.

Investigating the relationship between negative symptoms and metacognitive functioning in psychosis: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Negative symptoms are a persistent, yet under-explored problem in psychosis. Disturbances in metacognition are a potential causal factor in negative symptom development and maintenance. This meta-analysis uses individual participant data (IPD) from existing research to assess the relationship between negative symptoms and metacognition treated as summed scores and domains. METHODS: Data sets containing individuals with negative symptoms and metacognition data, aged 16+ with psychosis, were identified according to pre-specific parameters. IPD integrity and completeness were checked and data were synthesized in two-stage meta-analyses of each negative symptoms cluster compared with metacognition in seemingly unrelated regression using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Planned and exploratory sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible data sets were identified with 21 with sufficient similarity and availability to be included in meta-analyses, corresponding to 1301 participants. The strongest relationships observed were between summed scores of negative symptoms and metacognition. Metacognitive domains of self-reflectivity and understanding others' minds, and expressive negative symptoms emerged as significant in some meta-analyses. The uncertainty of several effect estimates increased significantly when controlling for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: This robust meta-analysis highlights the impact of using summed versus domain-specific scores of metacognition and negative symptoms, and relationships are not as clear-cut as once believed. Findings support arguments for further differentiation of negative symptom profiles and continued granular exploration of the relationship between metacognition and negative symptoms.

Using EMPOWER in daily life: a qualitative investigation of implementation experiences.

BACKGROUND: Digital self-management tools blended with clinical triage and peer support have the potential to improve access to early warning signs (EWS) based relapse prevention in schizophrenia care. However, the implementation of digital interventions in psychosis can be poor. Traditionally, research focused on understanding how people implement interventions has focused on the perspectives of mental health staff. Digital interventions are becoming more commonly used by patients within the context of daily life, which means there is a need to understand implementation from the perspectives of patients and carers. METHODS: Semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 16 patients who had access to the EMPOWER digital self-management intervention during their participation in a feasibility trial, six mental health staff members who supported the patients and were enrolled in the trial, and one carer participant. Interviews focused on understanding implementation, including barriers and facilitators. Data were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The intervention was well implemented, and EMPOWER was typically perceived positively by patients, mental health staff and the carer we spoke to. However, some patients reported negative views and reported ideas for intervention improvement. Patients reported valuing that the app afforded them access to things like information or increased social contact from peer support workers that went above and beyond that offered in routine care. Patients seemed motivated to continue implementing EMPOWER in daily life when they perceived it was creating positive change to their wellbeing, but seemed less motivated if this did not occur. Mental health staff and carer views suggest they developed increased confidence patients could self-manage and valued using the fact that people they support were using the EMPOWER intervention to open up conversations about self-management and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest peer worker supported digital self-management like EMPOWER has the potential to be implemented. Further evaluations of these interventions are warranted, and conducting qualitative research on the feasibility gives insight into implementation barriers and facilitators, improving the likelihood of interventions being usable. In particular, the views of patients who demonstrated low usage levels would be valuable.

Understanding the identity of lived experience researchers and providers: a conceptual framework and systematic narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Identity is how we understand ourselves and others through the roles or social groups we occupy. This review focuses on lived experience researchers and providers and the impact of these roles on identity. Lived experience researchers and providers use their lived experience of mental or physical disability either as experts by experience, researchers, peer workers, or mental health professionals with lived experience. They must navigate both professional and personal aspects to their roles which can be complex. Performing roles simultaneously embodying professional and lived experiences contribute towards a lack of clarity to identity. This is not adequately explained by the theoretical evidence base for identity. MAIN BODY: This systematic review and narrative synthesis aimed to provide a conceptual framework to understand how identity of lived experience researchers and providers is conceptualised. A search strategy was entered into EBSCO to access Academic search complete, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Psych Articles, and Connected papers. Out of the 2049 yielded papers, thirteen qualitative papers were eligible and synthesised, resulting in a conceptual framework. Five themes explained identity positions: Professional, Service user, Integrated, Unintegrated and Liminal. The EMERGES framework, an original conception of this review, found themes of: Enablers and Empowerment, Motivation, Empathy of the self and others, Recovery model and medical model, Growth and transformation, Exclusion and Survivor roots contributed to lived experience researcher and provider identities. CONCLUSIONS: The EMERGES framework offers a novel way to understand the identities of lived experience researchers and providers, helping support effective team working in mental health, education, and research settings.

Patients now commonly help to teach healthcare professionals from their own perspective of what it is like to experience health difficulties and healthcare services. Consequently, the needs of patients are being better recognised by healthcare providers. Patients are also involved in research. These types of patient involvement lead to improved research and care. Patients included in this type of work are frequently referred to as patient providers, service user researchers, peer workers, experts by experience or lived experience researchers and providers. This might mean they are no longer viewed as people who use services but as people who provide a service. This review helps us understand how those in these roles are affected and how they understand themselves. We found they were sometimes described as either patients or professionals. Sometimes they were described as both patient and professional at the same time. Other times they were described as somewhere between a patient or professional. There were other important ideas that affected how they viewed themselves because of these experiences. These included feelings of empowerment and motivation from doing this important teaching and clinical work. The roles gave them a better understanding of their own experiences. These roles led to a personal growth and sense of achievement. The experiences of exclusion, and of being a patient affected how patient providers think of themselves. This understanding can lead to patient providers being better understood and leads to better teaching and training of healthcare professionals.

A phase I open-label study of the safety and efficacy of apatinib (rivoceranib) administered to patients with advanced malignancies to improve sensitivity to pembrolizumab in the second- or later-line setting (APPEASE).

OBJECTIVE: APPEASE is a phase I study to assess the safety, dosing, and efficacy of rivoceranib (a selective, small-molecule inhibitor of VEGFR2) in combination with pembrolizumab. We aimed to treat patients with metastatic malignancies who have progressed through at least first-line therapy, with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks, as well as escalating doses of rivoceranib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Five patients were enrolled on the starting dose of rivoceranib 300 mg once daily. There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed in combination with pembrolizumab. The dose of rivoceranib was not escalated due to study closure. We note a treatment related grade 3 adverse event (AE) rate of 40%, predominantly in urothelial cancer patients, with no deaths related to treatment related AEs. The disease control rate was 75% (3 of 4) and the median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. Tumor shrinkage was noted in patients who were previously progressing on pembrolizumab alone. Apatinib 300 mg is safe and demonstrates anti-tumor activity in advanced solid tumors in combination with pembrolizumab. Further dose escalation and efficacy need to be investigated in larger disease-specific patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registration number: NCT03407976. Date of registration: January 17, 2018.

Digital Interventions for Psychological Well-being in University Students: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Life at university provides important opportunities for personal growth; however, this developmental phase also coincides with the peak period of risk for the onset of mental health disorders. In addition, specific university lifestyle factors, including impaired sleep and academic and financial stress, are known to exacerbate psychological distress in students. As a result, university students have been identified as a vulnerable population who often experience significant barriers to accessing psychological treatment. Digital psychological interventions are emerging as a promising solution for this population, but their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess digital interventions targeting psychological well-being among university students. METHODS: Database searches were conducted on December 2, 2021, via Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible studies were identified, 10 (77%) of which were included in the meta-analysis. Mean pre-post effect sizes indicated that such interventions led to small and significant improvement in psychological well-being (Hedges g=0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.4; P<.001). These effects remained, albeit smaller, when studies that included a wait-list control group were excluded (Hedges g=0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.35; P=.002). An analysis of acceptance and commitment therapy approaches revealed small and significant effects (k=6; Hedges g=0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.45; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Digital psychological interventions hold considerable promise for university students, although features that optimize service delivery and outcomes require further assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196654; https:/www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=196654.

Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse. OBJECTIVE: How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? DESIGN: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up. SETTINGS: Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user. INTERVENTIONS: The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse. RESULTS: We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference -4.29, 95% confidence interval -7.29 to -1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATIONS: This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3-0.4). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Relapse is a considerable problem for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Relapse can be predicted by early warning signs that are unique to the person. They include withdrawal, fear and paranoia. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Is it possible to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? WHAT DID WE DO?: We spoke with 88 mental health staff, 40 carers and 21 service users before we designed a system that used a mobile phone to help people monitor early warning signs. We included peer support to help people using the system reflect on their experiences. We hoped the overall system, called EMPOWER, would help people to be more in charge of their mental health. After consenting 86 people to the study, we were able to randomly assign 73 people either to use the EMPOWER system (42 people) or to receive their normal treatment alone (31 people). We used research measures over 1 year to help us better understand people's experiences. We also involved carers (for example family or friends) and mental health service providers in the research. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that it was possible to recruit people to the study and to gather research data. We also found that people used the EMPOWER system and found it acceptable. We found that those who used EMPOWER had a lower rate of relapse over 12 months than people who did not. They were also less likely to be fearful of relapse. We found that EMPOWER was likely to be cost-effective. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: This means that a study to investigate the effectiveness of a system to recognise and respond to early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia is possible.

The EMPOWER blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in Scotland and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Early warning signs monitoring by service users with schizophrenia has shown promise in preventing relapse but the quality of evidence is low. We aimed to establish the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS: This multicentre, feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to compare Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) with treatment as usual in community mental health services (CMHS) in Glasgow and Melbourne. CMHS were the unit of randomisation, selected on the basis of those that probably had five or more care coordinators willing to participate. Participants were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had a schizophrenia or related diagnosis confirmed via case records, were able to provide informed consent, had contact with CMHS, and had had a relapse within the previous 2 years. Participants were randomised within stratified clusters to EMPOWER or to continue their usual approach to care. EMPOWER blended a smartphone for active monitoring of early warning signs with peer support to promote self-management and clinical triage to promote access to relapse prevention. Main outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety, which was assessed through face-to-face interviews. App usage was assessed via the smartphone and self-report. Primary end point was 12 months. Participants, research assistants and other team members involved in delivering the intervention were not masked to treatment conditions. Assessment of relapse was done by an independent adjudication panel masked to randomisation group. The study is registered at ISRCTN (99559262). FINDINGS: We identified and randomised eight CMHS (six in Glasgow and two in Melbourne) comprising 47 care coordinators. We recruited 86 service users between Jan 19 and Aug 8, 2018; 73 were randomised (42 [58%] to EMPOWER and 31 [42%] to treatment as usual). There were 37 (51%) men and 36 (49%) women. At 12 months, main outcomes were collected for 32 (76%) of service users in the EMPOWER group and 30 (97%) of service users in the treatment as usual group. Of those randomised to EMPOWER, 30 (71%) met our a priori criterion of more than 33% adherence to daily monitoring that assumed feasibility. Median time to discontinuation of these participants was 31·5 weeks (SD 14·5). There were 29 adverse events in the EMPOWER group and 25 adverse events in the treatment as usual group. There were 13 app-related adverse events, affecting 11 people, one of which was serious. Fear of relapse was lower in the EMPOWER group than in the treatment as usual group at 12 months (mean difference -7·53 (95% CI -14·45 to 0·60; Cohen's d -0·53). INTERPRETATION: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse appears to be feasible, safe, and acceptable. A further main trial is merited. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Fear of relapse in schizophrenia: a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Fears of relapse in people diagnosed with schizophrenia have long been recognised as an impediment to recovery and wellbeing. However, the extent of the empirical basis for the fear of relapse concept is unclear. A systematic review is required to collate available evidence and define future research directions. METHODS: A pre-registered systematic search (PROSPERO CRD42020196964) of four databases (PubMED, MEDLINE-Ovid, PsycINFO-Ovid, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was conducted from their inception to 05/04/2021. RESULTS: We found nine eligible studies. Five were quantitative (4 descriptive and 1 randomised controlled trial), and four were qualitative. The available quantitative evidence suggests that fear of relapse may have concurrent positive relationships with depression (r = 0.72) and suicide ideation (r = 0.48), and negative relationship with self-esteem (r = 0.67). Qualitative synthesis suggests that fear of relapse is a complex phenomenon with behavioural and emotional components which has both direct and indirect effects on wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence in this area is limited and research with explicit service user and carer involvement is urgently needed to develop new and/or refine existing measurement tools, and to measure wellbeing rather than psychopathology. Nonetheless, clinicians should be aware that fear of relapse exists and appears to be positively associated with depression and suicide ideation, and negatively associated with self-esteem. Fear of relapse can include fears of losing personal autonomy and/or social/occupational functioning. It appears to impact carers as well as those diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Finding "Zen" in Aphasia: The Benefits of Yoga as Described by Key Stakeholders.

PURPOSE: Recently, the literature has witnessed a surging interest regarding the use of mind-body approaches with people who have aphasia, generating a plethora of possible outcome measures. During this same time, a core outcome set for aphasia has been recommended. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to give our survivor, co-survivor, and clinician stakeholder coauthors a platform to share their personal narrative regarding their yoga journey, with the goal of identifying primary outcome domains central to capturing the impact of yoga on the recovery process for people with poststroke aphasia. Ultimately, we hope this clinical focus article helps clinicians understand how yoga might benefit their patients and draws attention to potential outcome measures, while also highlighting the important fact that traditional aphasia assessments do not capture the improvements stakeholders pinpoint as crucial to the essence of mind-body interventions. METHOD: This clinical focus article summarizes the case reports of Terri's and Chase's poststroke yoga journeys using the power of personal narrative and an adapted photovoice method. Additional stakeholders share in this storytelling process, using a variety of narrative tools. As this story is unveiled, several patient-identified outcome domains are highlighted as essential to document the impact of yoga on survivors. RESULTS: Terri's and Chase's yoga journeys revealed the multifaceted impact of yoga on five domains: (a) feelings of wholeness and "zen," (b) increased attentional capacity for language tasks, (c) increased verbal fluency, (d) decreased pain, and (e) relationship mutuality. CONCLUSION: Team Yoga realized that the practice of yoga-whether as a stand-alone practice or integrated into therapy sessions-fosters feelings of wholeness or "zen," which likely correlates with decreased pain with a simultaneous increase in resilience and flexibility of coping strategies to manage the host of chronic poststroke challenges. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17003464.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of poor sleep, insomnia symptoms and stress in undergraduate students.

University students experience high prevalence of mental health problems and exacerbation of mental health difficulties, including sleep disturbances and stress during their studies. Stress and poor sleep quality and/or insomnia are interlinked outcomes for this population. The aim was to conduct a systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the relationships between sleep quality and/or insomnia with stress in students. Full-text articles of studies exploring the associations of stress with poor sleep quality and/or insomnia in undergraduate students using validated tools and published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible for inclusion. Thirty-four studies, resulting in 37 effect sizes, included and all were suitable for meta-analysis. The weighted pooled effect size between sleep quality and stress was for 0.39 (25 studies, n = 10,065), whereas a slightly higher pooled association of 0.41 was demonstrated for insomnia and stress (12 studies, n = 5564.5). Pooled associations show moderate effects for associations between sleep quality, insomnia and stress in undergraduate students. High heterogeneity in meta-analyses was found, suggesting the findings should be considered cautiously. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies exploring sleep difficulties across the academic year, whilst university services should consider psychoeducation for stress and sleep in university students, especially during transition to university.

Perspectives of Trial Staff on the Barriers to Recruitment in a Digital Intervention for Psychosis and How to Work Around Them: Qualitative Study Within a Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment processes for clinical trials of digital interventions for psychosis are seldom described in detail in the literature. Although trial staff have expertise in describing barriers to and facilitators of recruitment, a specific focus on understanding recruitment from the point of view of trial staff is rare, and because trial staff are responsible for meeting recruitment targets, a lack of research on their point of view is a key limitation. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to understand recruitment from the point of view of trial staff and discover what they consider important. METHODS: We applied pluralistic ethnographic methods, including analysis of trial documents, observation, and focus groups, and explored the recruitment processes of the EMPOWER (Early Signs Monitoring to Prevent Relapse in Psychosis and Promote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery) feasibility trial, which is a digital app-based intervention for people diagnosed with schizophrenia. RESULTS: Recruitment barriers were categorized into 2 main themes: service characteristics (lack of time available for mental health staff to support recruitment, staff turnover, patient turnover [within Australia only], management styles of community mental health teams, and physical environment) and clinician expectations (filtering effects and resistance to research participation). Trial staff negotiated these barriers through strategies such as emotional labor (trial staff managing feelings and expressions to successfully recruit participants) and trying to build relationships with clinical staff working within community mental health teams. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers in clinical trials for digital psychosis interventions face numerous recruitment barriers and do their best to work flexibly and to negotiate these barriers and meet recruitment targets. The recruitment process appeared to be enhanced by trial staff supporting each other throughout the recruitment stage of the trial.

Early Signs Monitoring to Prevent Relapse in Psychosis and Promote Well-Being, Engagement, and Recovery: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Harnessing Mobile Phone Technology Blended With Peer Support.

BACKGROUND: Relapse in schizophrenia is a major cause of distress and disability and is predicted by changes in symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and suspiciousness (early warning signs [EWSs]). These can be used as the basis for timely interventions to prevent relapse. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the implementation of EWS interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) against treatment as usual (TAU). Our primary outcomes are establishing parameters of feasibility, acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of a digital health intervention as an adjunct to usual care that is deliverable in the UK National Health Service and Australian community mental health service (CMHS) settings. We will assess the feasibility of candidate primary outcomes, candidate secondary outcomes, and candidate mechanisms for a definitive trial. METHODS: We will randomize CMHSs to EMPOWER or TAU. We aim to recruit up to 120 service user participants from 8 CMHSs and follow them for 12 months. Eligible service users will (1) be aged 16 years and above, (2) be in contact with local CMHSs, (3) have either been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient service or received crisis intervention at least once in the previous 2 years for a relapse, and (4) have an International Classification of Diseases-10 diagnosis of a schizophrenia-related disorder. Service users will also be invited to nominate a carer to participate. We will identify the feasibility of the main trial in terms of recruitment and retention to the study and the acceptability, usability, safety, and outcome signals of the EMPOWER intervention. EMPOWER is a mobile phone app that enables the monitoring of well-being and possible EWSs of relapse on a daily basis. An algorithm calculates changes in well-being based on participants' own baseline to enable tailoring of well-being messaging and clinical triage of possible EWSs. Use of the app is blended with ongoing peer support. RESULTS: Recruitment to the trial began September 2018, and follow-up of participants was completed in July 2019. Data collection is continuing. The database was locked in July 2019, followed by analysis and disclosing of group allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge gained from the study will inform the design of a definitive trial including finalizing the delivery of our digital health intervention, sample size estimation, methods to ensure successful identification, consent, randomization, and follow-up of participants, and the primary and secondary outcomes. The trial will also inform the final health economic model to be applied in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 99559262; http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15058.