Common mental disorder including psychotic experiences: Trailblazing a new recovery pathway within the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in England

Screening for psychosis risk in primary mental health care services - Implementation, prevalence and recovery trajectories

OBJECTIVES

Early interventions improve outcomes for people at high risk of psychosis and are likely to be cost saving. This group tends to seek help for emotional problems - depression and anxiety - via primary care services, where early detection methods are poor. We sought to determine prevalence rates of high risk for psychosis in UK primary care mental health services and clinical outcomes following routinely delivered psychological therapies.

METHODS

We used a brief screen designed for settings with low base rates and significant time constraints to determine prevalence of high risk for psychosis in UK 'Talking Therapies' services. We examined socio-demographic characteristics, presenting problems and recovery trajectories for this group, compared with people not at risk of psychosis.

RESULTS

A 2-item screen selected for specificity yielded a prevalence rate of 3% in primary care mental health services. People at elevated risk of psychosis were younger and more likely to report at least one long-term physical condition. This group presented with higher levels of depression, anxiety and trauma symptoms at assessment and were less likely to have recovered at the end of treatment, compared to people not at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Very brief screening tools can be implemented in busy health care settings. The 3% of referrals to UK primary care psychological therapies services at elevated risk of psychosis typically present with more severe symptoms and greater levels of comorbidity and may require augmented interventions to recover fully.

Clinical presentation of psychotic experiences in patients with common mental disorders attending the UK primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) Programme

BACKGROUND

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services address anxiety and depression in primary care, with psychotic disorders typically excluded. Our previous research found 1 in 4 patients report distressing psychotic experiences (PE) alongside common mental disorders, yet little is known about their clinical presentation and impact on recovery.

METHODS

We used the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences - Positive Scale (CAPE-P15) to assess the clinical presentation and symptomatic profile of PE within IAPT settings across three National Health Service (NHS) trusts, serving a diverse population in Southern England. We identified different classes based on the reported PE frequencies using latent class analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2042 IAPT patients completed the CAPE-P15. The mean age was 39.8 (±15.3) years. We identified five distinct classes of symptom profiles, findings that PE were common, especially self-referential and persecutory ideas. Prevalence and intensity increased across classes, extending to bizarre experiences and perceptual abnormalities in the fifth and least common class. Perceptual abnormalities were a strong indicator of symptom severity, with patients being the least likely to achieve recovery by the end of treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Data were collected during a service evaluation. Replication of these findings across other IAPT services could prove beneficial. We did not collect information on negative PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking treatment for anxiety and depression in primary care commonly experience a wide range of positive PE. Self-referential and persecutory ideation were prevalent; perceptual abnormalities were infrequent. Providing information about prevalence and tailoring therapy may help reduce patient distress.

The identification and management of people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis in primary and secondary care services: A qualitative interview study

AIMS

Early intervention in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis can prevent the onset of psychosis. Clinical guidelines recommend that ARMS are referred to triage services, and then to Early Intervention (EI) teams in secondary care for assessment and treatment. However, little is known about how ARMS patients are identified and managed in UK primary and secondary care. This study explored patients' and clinicians' views of ARMS patients' care pathways.

METHODS

Eleven patients, 20 GPs, 11 clinicians from the triaging Primary Care Liaison Services (PCLS) and 10 EI clinicians were interviewed. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Most patients said their symptoms started in adolescence with depression and anxiety. Before being referred to EI teams, most patients were referred by their GP to well-being services for talking therapies, which they had not found helpful. Some GPs said secondary care's high acceptance thresholds and scarce treatment availability made them reluctant to refer to EI teams. Triage in PCLS was influenced by patients' risk of self-harm, and formulation of psychotic symptoms; only those without clear evidence of other pathology and not at high risk of self-harm were referred to EI teams, the others being referred to Recovery/Crisis services. Although patients referred to EI teams were offered an assessment, only some EI teams were commissioned to treat ARMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals meeting ARMS criteria might not receive early intervention due to high treatment thresholds and limited treatment availability in secondary care, suggesting clinical guidelines are not being met for this patient group.

Treating common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the primary care improving access to psychological therapies programme (the TYPPEX study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with nested economic and process evaluation of a training package for therapists

INTRODUCTION

At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN93895792.

The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive scale (CAPE-P15) accurately classifies and differentiates psychotic experience levels in adolescents from the general population

Background

There is increasing interest in studying psychotic symptoms in non-clinical populations, with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive scale (CAPE-P15) being one of the self-screening questionnaires used most commonly for this purpose. Further research is needed to evaluate the ability of the scale to accurately identify and classify positive psychotic experiences (PE) in the general population.

Aim

To provide psychometric evidence about the accuracy of the CAPE-P15 for detecting PE in a sample of Chilean adolescents from the general population and classifying them according to their PE severity levels.

Method

We administered the CAPE-P15 to a general sample of 1594 students aged 12 to 19. Based on Item Response Theory (IRT), we tested the accuracy of the instrument using two main parameters: difficulty and discrimination power of the 15 items.

Results

We found that the scale provides very accurate information about PE, particularly for high PE levels. The items with the highest capability to determine the presence of the latent trait were those assessing perceptual anomalies (auditory and visual hallucinations), bizarre experiences (a double has taken the place of others; being controlled by external forces), and persecutory ideation (conspiracy against me).

Conclusions

The CAPE-P15 is an accurate and suitable tool to screen PE and to accurately classify and differentiate PE levels in adolescents from the general population. Further research is needed to better understand how maladaptive psychological mechanisms influence relationships between PE and suicidal ideation (SI) in the general population.

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) has potential but is not sufficient: How can it better meet the range of primary care mental health needs?

BACKGROUND

The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme has been impactful in increasing access to psychological therapies at primary care level. However, it remains unclear whether IAPT's widely disseminated achievements include the reduction in service users' transition to secondary care services and whether IAPT services are providing interventions that match the level of complexity of presenting problems of those who are referred.

AIMS

This review sets out to clarify the clinical characteristics of IAPT cohorts, whether the interventions provided target these characteristics, and whether outcomes are related to the use of the stepped-care model advocated in the operationalization of IAPT services.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was undertaken on PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase using the terms: IAPT, anxiety, and depression.

RESULTS

Of 472 paper identified, 24 articles were deemed pertinent. It appears that IAPT cohorts are complex and current service delivery frameworks may not meet their needs. IAPT developments and research for long-term physical health conditions and serious mental illness have been recently advocated, though whether these are sufficient and viable when set in IAPT's prescriptive backdrop remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies provision and research at present does not adequately consider the complexity of its clientele in the context of treatment outcomes and service delivery. Recommendations are provided for future research and practice to tackle these deficiencies.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) has significantly increased access to psychological therapies within primary care over the last decade, though it is unclear whether its interventions are sufficiently tailored to meet the actual levels of complexity of its clientele and prevent them from needing onward referral to secondary care as originally envisaged. Given the ongoing focus on and investment in IAPT informed developments into long-term conditions and serious mental illness, this review considers whether additional elucidation of the model's original objectives is required, as a precursor to its expansion into other clinical areas. The review indicates that there is a stark lack of data pertaining to the generalisable, real-world clinical benefits of the IAPT programme as it currently stands. Recommendations are provided for future areas of research, and practice enhancements to ensure the value of IAPT services to clients in the wider context of NHS mental health services, including the interface with secondary care, are considered.

Breaking the web: life beyond the at-risk mental state for psychosis

Psychiatry's most recent foray into the area of risk and prevention has been spear-headed by work on at-risk mental states for psychotic disorders. Twenty-five years' research and clinical application have led us to reformulate the clinical evolution of these syndromes, blurred unhelpful conceptual boundaries between childhood and adult life by adopting a developmental view and has changed the shape of many mental health services as part of a global movement to increase quality. But there are problems: fragmentary psychotic experiences are common in young people but transition from risk-state to full syndrome is uncommon away from specialist clinics with rarefied referrals and can, anyway, be subtle; diagnostic over-shadowing by the prospect of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders may divert clinical attention from the kaleidoscopic and disabling range of probably treatable psychopathology with which people with risk syndromes present. We use a 19th Century lyric poem, The Lady of Shallot, as an allegory for Psychiatry warning us against regarding these mental states only as pointers towards diagnoses that probably will not occur. Viewed from the fresh perspective of common mental disorders they tell us a great deal about the psychopathological crucible of the second and third decades, the nature of diagnosis, and point towards new treatment paradigms.

Psychotic experiences, psychiatric comorbidity and mental health need in the general population: a cross-sectional and cohort study in Southeast London

BACKGROUND

Co-occurrence of common mental disorders (CMD) with psychotic experiences is well-known. There is little research on the public mental health relevance of concurrent psychotic experiences for service use, suicidality, and poor physical health. We aim to: (1) describe the distribution of psychotic experiences co-occurring with a range of non-psychotic psychiatric disorders [CMD, depressive episode, anxiety disorder, probable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and personality dysfunction], and (2) examine associations of concurrent psychotic experiences with secondary mental healthcare use, psychological treatment use for CMD, lifetime suicide attempts, and poor self-rated health.

METHODS

We linked a prospective cross-sectional community health survey with a mental healthcare provider database. For each non-psychotic psychiatric disorder, patients with concurrent psychotic experiences were compared to those without psychotic experiences on use of secondary mental healthcare, psychological treatment for CMD, suicide attempt, physical functioning, and a composite multimorbidity score, using logistic regression and Cox regressions.

RESULTS

In all disorders except for anxiety disorder, concurrent psychotic experiences were accompanied by a greater odds of all outcomes (odds ratios) for a unit change in composite multimorbidity score ranged between 2.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-3.27] and 3.46 (95% CI 1.52-7.85). Hazard ratios for secondary mental health service use for non-psychotic disorders with concurrent psychotic experiences, ranged from 0.53 (95% CI 0.15-1.86) for anxiety disorders with psychotic experiences to 4.99 (95% CI 1.22-20.44) among those with PTSD with psychotic experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-occurring psychotic experiences indicate greater public mental health burden, suggesting psychotic experiences could be a marker for future preventive strategies improving public mental health.

Treating sleep problems in young people at ultra-high-risk of psychosis: study protocol for a single-blind parallel group randomised controlled feasibility trial (SleepWell)

BACKGROUND

Effective interventions, targeting key contributory causal factors, are needed to prevent the emergence of severe mental health problems in young people. Insomnia is a common clinical issue that is problematic in its own right but that also leads to the development and persistence of psychotic experiences. The implication is that treating sleep problems may prevent the onset of psychosis. We collected initial case series data with 12 young people at ultra-high-risk of psychosis. Post-intervention, there were improvements in sleep, depression and psychotic experiences. Now we test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, with a clinical aim to treat sleep problems and hence reduce depression, psychotic experiences, and prevent transition to psychosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted. Forty patients aged 14 to 25 years who are at ultra-high-risk of psychosis and have sleep disturbance will be recruited from National Health Service (NHS) mental health services. Participants will be randomised to receive either a novel, targeted, youth-focussed sleep intervention in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Assessor-blinded assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3 months (post-intervention) and 9 months (follow-up). The eight-session psychological intervention will target the key mechanisms which disrupt sleep: circadian rhythm irregularities, low sleep pressure, and hyperarousal. To gain an in-depth understanding of participants' views on the acceptability of the intervention and study procedures, 16 participants (n=10 intervention, n=6 control) will take part in qualitative interviews. Analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, and treatment uptake rates) and provide initial CI estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews will assess the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and lay networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN85601537.

More sensitive identification of psychotic experiences in common mental disorder by primary mental healthcare services - effect on prevalence and recovery: casting the net wider

BACKGROUND

Psychotic experiences may emerge in more severe cases of common mental disorders (CMD). Previous work identified that 30% of patients treated by mental health services in primary healthcare, specifically the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme in England, reported psychotic experiences, began treatment with more severe CMD and were less likely to reach recovery.

AIMS

To replicate our previous assessment of psychotic experiences in the IAPT programme using a more sensitive threshold and determine its impact on the prevalence of psychotic experience and likelihood of recovery. Additionally, to compare recovery rates between patients with and without psychotic experiences at the end of therapy.

METHOD

The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-P15) with a cut-off of 1.30 was used to determine the prevalence of psychotic experiences. Recovery rates were determined using measures collected in the IAPT programme for depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7). Multi-group growth models estimated improvement trajectories.

RESULTS

In total, 2042 patients with CMD completed the CAPE-P15. The mean age was 39.8. The prevalence of psychotic experiences was 18% higher when using a lower threshold. The recovery rate for patients with psychotic experiences was lower (36%) than for those without (64%). Despite sharing similar improvement trajectories, the higher initial severity of CMD among patients with psychotic experiences impeded likelihood of recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

As psychotic experiences may be a marker of severity in CMD, the benefits of identifying these in IAPT populations may also apply to patients with milder experiences. Further investigation of the consequential demands on service provision and how this would affect clinical practice is recommended.

Prevalence of and recovery from common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the UK Primary Care Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Programme

BACKGROUND

Psychotic experiences (PE) may co-occur with common mental disorders (CMD), such as depression and anxiety. However, we know very little about the prevalence of and recovery from PE in primary mental health care settings, such as the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in the UK National Health Service (NHS), where most CMD are treated.

METHODS

We used the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences - Positive 15-item Scale (CAPE-P15) to determine the prevalence of PE in patients receiving treatment from IAPT services. Patient-reported measures of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) are routinely collected and establish recovery in IAPT services. We studied recovery rates according to the absence and presence of PE. Multi-group growth models estimated improvement trajectories for each group.

RESULTS

A total of 2,042 patients with CMD completed the CAPE-P15. The mean age was 39.8. The overall prevalence of PE was 29.68%. The recovery rate was 27.43% compared to 62.08% for those without PE. Although patients with or without PE shared similar improvement trajectories, the initial severity of patients with PE impeded their likelihood of recovery.

LIMITATIONS

We mirrored routine data collection in IAPT services, including self-report questionnaires that may affect valid reporting of symptoms. Missing data in the calculation of improvement trajectories may reduce generalisability.

CONCLUSIONS

At least one in four patients receiving treatment from IAPT services in primary care experience CMD and PE. This significant group of people experience a lower recovery rate, with adverse implications not only for them but also for efficiency of services.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled effectiveness and economic studies

OBJECTIVE

Many people with psychotic experiences do not develop psychotic disorders, yet those who seek help demonstrate high clinical complexity and poor outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences.

METHOD

We searched 13 databases for studies of psychological interventions for adults with psychotic experiences, but not psychotic disorders. Our outcomes were the proportion of participants remitting from psychotic experiences (primary); changes in positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning, distress, and quality of life; and economic outcomes (secondary). We analysed results using multilevel random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reports met inclusion criteria. In general, there was no strong evidence for the superiority of any one intervention. Five studies reported on our primary outcome, though only two reports provided randomised controlled trial evidence that psychological intervention (specifically, cognitive behavioural therapy) promoted remission from psychotic experiences. For secondary outcomes, we could only meta-analyse trials of cognitive behavioural therapy. We found that cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective than treatment as usual for reducing distress (pooled standardised mean difference: -0.24; 95% confidence interval = [-0.37, -0.10]), but no more effective than the control treatment for improving any other outcome. Individual reports indicated that cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, sleep cognitive behavioural therapy, systemic therapy, cognitive remediation therapy, and supportive treatments improved at least one clinical or functional outcome. Four reports included economic evaluations, which suggested cognitive behavioural therapy may be cost-effective compared with treatment as usual.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analytic findings were primarily null, with the exception that cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce the distress associated with psychotic experiences. Our analyses were limited by scarcity of studies, small samples and variable study quality. Several intervention frameworks showed preliminary evidence of positive outcomes; however, the paucity of consistent evidence for clinical and functional improvement highlights a need for further research into psychological treatments for psychotic experiences.

PROSPERO PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016033869.

Validation of the Korean Version of the 15-Item Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences in a College Population

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-15 item positive scale (CAPE-15) in college students.

METHODS

This study had two stages: initial screening with self-report questionnaires including the CAPE-15, and semi-structured interviews to investigate the instrument's diagnostic validity. The initial screening involved 1,749 college students. The modified Korean version of Prodromal Questionnaire-16 item (mKPQ-16) was also administered. The criteria for ultra-high risk (UHR) of psychosis in the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS) were the gold standard for diagnosis.

RESULTS

Twelve of the interviewed subjects met the CAARMS criteria for UHR of psychosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest (0.936) for the CAPE-15 distress score (p<0.001). The use of 6 as the cutoff for the CAPE-15 distress score resulted in the best balance of sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (85.2%), with a favorable positive predictive value of 32.4%. The coefficients of correlation between the CAPE-15 and mKPQ-16 were significant.

CONCLUSION

The Korean version of the CAPE-15 is a good instrument for screening for psychosis risk in collegiate settings. The validation of this scale could contribute to the early identification of psychosis in the Korean community.

Terminology and assessment tools of psychosis: A systematic narrative review

AIM

Phenomena within the psychosis continuum that varies in frequency/duration/intensity have been increasingly identified. Different terms describe these phenomena, however there is no standardization within the terminology. This review evaluated the definitions and assessment tools of seven terms - (i) 'psychotic experiences'; (ii) 'psychotic-like experiences'; (iii) 'psychotic-like symptoms'; (iv) 'attenuated psychotic symptoms'; (v) 'prodromal psychotic symptoms'; (vi) 'psychotic symptomatology'; and (vii) 'psychotic symptoms'.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched during February-March 2019. Inclusion criteria included 1989-2019, full text, human, and English. Papers with no explicit definition or assessment tool, duplicates, conference abstracts, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or no access were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 2238 papers were identified and of these, 627 were included. Definitions and assessment tools varied, but some trends were found. Psychotic experiences and psychotic-like experiences were transient and mild, found in the general population and those at-risk. Psychotic-like symptoms were subthreshold and among at-risk populations and non-psychotic mental disorders. Attenuated psychotic symptoms were subthreshold but associated with distress, risk, and help-seeking. Prodromal psychotic symptoms referred to the prodrome of psychotic disorders. Psychotic symptomatology included delusions and hallucinations within psychotic disorders. Psychotic symptoms was the broadest term, encompassing a range of populations but most commonly involving hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder, and disorganization.

DISCUSSION

A model for conceptualizing the required terms is proposed and future directions needed to advance this field of research are discussed.

Lived experience in people with inflammatory bowel disease and comorbid anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom and Australia

This study explored the lived experience of people with inflammatory bowel disease and anxiety/depression. It utilised a deductive biopsychosocial framework. Overall, 24 patients and 20 healthcare professionals from two countries participated. In the United Kingdom, the main themes included (1) bidirectional relationship between inflammatory bowel disease and mental health, (2) the need for healthcare integration and (3) lack of awareness about the disease. In Australia, (1) the 'vicious cycle' of inflammatory bowel disease and psychosocial health, (2) the need for biopsychosocial healthcare integration and (3) the stigma of a hidden disease. Better communication around mental illness is essential in improving inflammatory bowel disease healthcare.

Revisiting CAPE-P15 cut-off values to increase sensitivity for detecting psychotic experiences in primary care

Psychotic experiences (PE) co-occur with depression and anxiety, and indicate severity of general mental distress. Identifying PE in primary care mental health settings may facilitate access to evidence-based interventions. The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences - Positive 15-items Scale (CAPE-P15) has shown promise in detecting those at ultra-high risk of developing psychosis. Based on a sample of 1131 individuals with common mental disorder we propose high-sensitivity thresholds of the CAPE-P15 to broaden its application across clinical settings.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many people who have common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These experiences are associated with higher clinical complexity, poor treatment response, and negative clinical outcomes. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for people with psychotic experiences. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to reduce psychotic experiences and their associated distress and (2) identify key components of effective interventions.

METHODS

Our search strategy will combine terms for (1) psychological interventions, (2) psychotic experiences, and (3) symptoms associated with psychotic experiences. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, all Cochrane databases, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and EconLit. Our primary outcome is the proportion of people who recovered or remitted from psychotic experiences after the intervention. Our secondary outcomes are changes in positive psychotic symptoms, negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning (including social, occupational, and academic), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two independent reviewers will judge each study against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and will extract study characteristics, outcome data, and intervention components. Risk of bias and methodological quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Drummond Checklist. Results will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

DISCUSSION

The identification of effective psychological interventions and of specific components associated with intervention effectiveness will augment existing evidence that can inform the development of a new, tailored intervention to improve outcomes related to psychotic symptoms, anxiety and depression, distress, functioning, and quality of life.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033869.

Coproducing healthcare service improvement for people with common mental health disorders including psychotic experiences: a study protocol of a multiperspective qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Some people, who have common mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These individuals may experience a treatment gap: their symptoms neither reach the increasingly high threshold for secondary care, nor do they receive full benefit from current interventions offered by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. The result may be poorer clinical and functional outcomes. A new talking therapy could potentially benefit this group. Informed by principles of coproduction, this study will seek the views of service users and staff to inform the design and development of such a therapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Semistructured interviews will be conducted with IAPT service users, therapists and managers based in three different geographical areas in England. Our sample will include (1) approximately 15 service users who will be receiving therapy or will have completed therapy at the time of recruitment, (2) approximately 15 service users who initiated treatment but withdrew, (3) approximately 15 therapists each with at least 4-month experience in a step-3 IAPT setting and (4) three IAPT managers. Data analysis will be based on the constant comparative method.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the London Harrow Research Ethics Committee (reference: 18/LO/0642), and all National Health Service Trusts have granted permissions to conduct the study. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and presented at academic conferences. We will also produce a 'digest' summary of the findings, which will be accessible, visual and freely available.