Excerpt Background and aims: Individuals living with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar can have significant emotional, cognitive, physical and social challenges. Most people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom do not receive specialist mental health care. Collaborative care is a system of support that combines clinical and organisational components to provide integrated and person-centred care. It has not been tested for severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop and evaluate a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) designed to improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses when compared with usual care. Methods: Phase 1 included studies to (1) understand context: an observational retrospective study of primary and secondary care medical records and an update of the Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’; (2) develop and formatively evaluate the PARTNERS intervention: a review of literature on collaborative care and recovery, interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and recovery, focus groups with service users and a formative evaluation of a prototype intervention model; and (3) develop trial science work in this area: a core outcome set for bipolar and recruitment methods. In phase 2 we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial measuring quality of life using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life and secondary outcomes including time use, recovery and mental well-being; a cost-effectiveness study; and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Public involvement underpinned all of the workstream activity through the study Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the employment of service user researchers in the project team. Results phase 1: The study of records showed that care for individuals under secondary care is variable and substantial and that people are seen every 2 weeks on average. The updated Cochrane review showed that collaborative care interventions were highly variable, and no reliable conclusions can be drawn about effectiveness. The PARTNERS model incorporated change at organisational, practitioner and individual levels. Coaching was selected as the main form of support for individuals’ personal goals. In the formative evaluation, we showed that more intensive supervision and ‘top-up’ training were needed to achieve the desired shifts in practice. A core outcome set was developed for bipolar, and measures were selected for the trial. We developed a stepped approach to recruitment including initial approach and appointment. Results phase 2: The trial was conducted in four areas. In total, 198 participants were recruited from 39 practices randomised. Participants received either the PARTNERS intervention or usual care. The follow-up rate was 86% at 9–12 months. The mean change in overall Manchester Short Assessment Quality of Life score did not differ between the groups [0.25 (standard deviation 0.73) for intervention vs. 0.21 (standard deviation 0.86) for control]. We also found no difference for any secondary measures. Safety outcomes (e.g. crises) did not differ between those receiving and those not receiving the intervention. Although the costs of intervention and usual care were similar, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the overall cost-effectiveness of PARTNERS. The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated that a significant proportion of individuals did not receive the full intervention. This was partly due to care partner absence and participant choice. The in-depth realist informed case studies showed that participants generally appreciated the support, with some describing having a ‘professional friend’ as very important. For some people there was evidence that delivery of the intervention had led to specific personal changes. Strengths and limitations: The phase 1 records study provided insights into usual care that had not been previously documented. The realist informed complex intervention development was both theoretical and pragmatic. The trial continued through the COVID-19 pandemic with high levels of follow-up. The process evaluation had the depth to explore individual changes in participants’ response to the intervention. Weaknesses in the trial methodology included suboptimal implementation, outcome measures that may not have been sensitive to changes patients most appreciated and difficulties collecting some outcomes. Conclusions: While PARTNERS was not shown to be superior to usual care, the change to PARTNERS care was not shown to be unsafe. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected in studies of care that include those with psychosis. Some individuals responded well to the intervention when psychological support in the form of individualised goal setting was flexibly deployed, with evidence that having access to a ‘professional friend’ was experienced as particularly helpful for some individuals. Future work: Key components of the PARTNERS model could be developed further and tested, along with improved supervision in the context of ongoing community mental health care change. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN95702682. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR200625) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Can delusions, in the context of psychosis, enhance a person’s sense of meaningfulness? The case described here suggests that, in some circumstances, they can. This prompts further questions into the complexities of delusion as a lived phenomenon, with important implications for the clinical encounter. While assumptions of meaninglessness are often associated with concepts of ‘disorder’, ‘harm’ and ‘dysfunction’, we suggest that meaning can nonetheless be found within what is commonly taken to be incomprehensible or even meaningless. A phenomenological and value-based approach appears indispensable for clinicians facing the seemingly paradoxical coexistence of harmfulness and meaningfulness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Background The economic burden of psychotic disorders is not well documented in LMICs like India, due to several bottlenecks present in Indian healthcare system like lack of adequate resources, low budget for mental health services and inequity in accessibility of treatment. Hence, a large proportion of health expenditure is paid out of pocket by the households. Objective To evaluate the direct and indirect costs incurred by patients with First Episode Psychosis and their families in a North Indian setting. Method Direct and Indirect costs were estimated for 87 patients diagnosed at AIIMS, New Delhi with first-episode psychosis (nonaffective) in the first- and sixth month following diagnosis, and the six months before diagnosis, using a bespoke questionnaire. Indirect costs were valued using the Human Capital Approach. Results Mean total costs in month one were INR 7991 ($107.5). Indirect costs were 78.3% of this total. Productivity losses was a major component of the indirect cost. Transportation was a key component of direct costs. Costs fell substantially at six months (INR 2732, Indirect Costs 61%). Respondents incurred substantial costs pre-diagnosis, related to formal and informal care seeking and loss of income. Conclusion Families suffered substantial productivity loss. Care models and financial protection that address this could substantially reduce the financial burden of mental illness. Measures to address disruption to work and education during FEP are likely to have significant long-term benefits. Families also suffered prolonged income loss pre-diagnosis, highlighting the benefits of early and effective diagnosis.

As the global burden of mortality from COVID-19 continues to rise, an understanding of who is most at risk of adverse outcomes is of paramount importance. Pre-existing cardiometabolic, renal and respiratory diseases as well as old age are well-established risk factors associated with disease severity and mortality among patients with COVID-19. However, mounting evidence also indicates an increased susceptibility to, and risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in people with schizophrenia, independent of age and comorbidity. Therefore, elucidating the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms which may increase the risk of poor outcomes in people with schizophrenia is of crucial importance. Here, we provide a narrative on the current understanding of COVID-19 in patients with schizophrenia and propose potential mechanisms which may link schizophrenia with an increased susceptibility to, and greater risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19. Given the existing knowledge gaps, robust clinical and biological studies are required to further our understanding of some of these underlying mechanisms, so that effective prevention and treatment strategies for COVID-19 in patients with schizophrenia can be developed.

Negative psychotic symptoms are among the most disabling features of schizophrenia, and are strongly associated with relatively poor clinical and functional outcomes. However, there are no effective treatments for negative symptoms, and this represents a major unmet clinical need. Recent research has shown that negative symptoms are already present in many patients at illness onset. There is evidence that cariprazine may improve negative symptoms in patients with chronic schizophrenia. However, its utility in treating negative symptoms in the early stage of the disorder is unclear. Here, we report six cases of patients with first-episode psychosis who were treated with cariprazine.

Purpose People with psychosis are vulnerable to social isolation, which is associated with worse clinical outcomes. In general populations, people living in areas with higher population density have more social contacts, while those living in more socially deprived and fragmented areas are less satisfied with their relationships. We assessed whether and how neighbourhood factors are associated with social contacts and satisfaction with friendships for people with psychosis. Methods We carried out a cross-sectional study including people with psychosis aged 18–65 years in urban and rural sites in England. Population density and social deprivation and fragmentation indexes were described within Lower Level Super Output Areas (LSOA). Their associations with participants’ social contacts and satisfaction with friendships were tested with negative binomial and ordinal regression models, respectively. Results We surveyed 511 participants with psychotic disorders. They had a median of two social contacts in the previous week (interquartile range [IQR] = 1–4), and rated satisfaction with friendships as 5 out of 7 (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life; IQR = 4–6). Higher population density was associated with fewer social contacts (Z-standardised relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.79–0.99, p = 0.03), but not with satisfaction with friendships (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.93–1.26, p = 0.31). No associations were found for social contacts or satisfaction with friendships with social deprivation or fragmentation indexes. Conclusions Clinicians in urban areas should be aware that their patients with psychosis are more socially isolated when more people live around them, and this could impact their clinical outcomes. These findings may inform housing programmes.