Early Assessment and Support Alliance Connections: Community-Based Participatory Research to Develop a Peer-based Early Psychosis Web Resource with Young Adults

Participatory Action Research Among People With Serious Mental Illness: A Scoping Review

Participatory action research (PAR) is a research approach that creates spaces for marginalized individuals and communities to be co-researchers to guide relevant social change. While working toward social transformation, all members of the PAR team often experience personal transformation. Engaging people with serious mental illness (PSMI) in PAR helps them to develop skills and build relationships with stakeholders in their communities. It supports positive changes that persist after the completion of the formal research project. With the increasing recognition of PAR's value in PSMI, it is helpful to consider the challenges and advantages of this approach to research with this population. This review aimed at determining how PAR has been conducted with PSMI and at summarizing strategies used to empower PSMI as co-researchers by engaging them in research. This scoping review followed five steps Arkesy and O'Malley (2005) outlined. We charted, collated, and summarized relevant information from 87 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We identified five strategies to empower PSMI through PAR. These are to build capacity, balance power distribution, create collaborative environments, promote peer support, and enhance their engagement as co-researchers. In conclusion, PAR is an efficient research approach to engage PSMI. Further, PSMI who engage in PAR may benefit from strategies for empowerment that meet their unique needs as co-researchers.

Psychosocial interventions for people with a first episode psychosis: between tradition and innovation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Assessing recent evidence on psychosocial interventions for people with first episode psychosis (FEP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Family interventions (FI) reduce relapse rates, whilst cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) shows a moderate effect in improving positive psychotic symptoms. Vocational interventions (VI) appear to be worthy of implementation within early intervention for psychosis (EIP) teams, but it is still unclear what is the most cost-effective strategy for their delivery. Promising interventions, which need more careful evaluation, focus on substance misuse, physical health comorbidities, improvement of social participation, peer support and the potential of new technologies.

SUMMARY

The first five years after the onset of psychotic symptoms are a 'critical period' in which psychosocial interventions can be particularly influential in determining prognosis. Traditional EIP interventions have different effectiveness profiles, i.e., FI reduce relapse rates, CBT has a moderate effectiveness on overall and positive symptoms and VI can improve educational and employment-related functioning. Newer interventions show promise on important targets for FEP treatment but require higher-quality evaluations. Decisions on which interventions to implement within EIP teams should be informed by high-quality evidence, but difficult choices will have to be made based on costs, professionals and technologies available, and local priorities.