Aim: Mental health-related stigma is considered a significant barrier to help-seeking and accessing care in those experiencing mental illness. Long duration of untreated psychosis is associated with poorer outcomes. The impact of stigma on the duration of untreated psychosis, in firstepisode psychosis remains unexplored. To examine the association between mental healthrelated stigma and access to care in people experiencing first-episode psychosis in Birmingham, UK. Methods:We collected data on a prospective cohort of first-episode psychosis. The StigmaScale was used as a measure of mental health-related stigma, and duration of untreated psychosis as a measure of delay in accessing care. We performed logistic and linear regression analyses to explore the relationship between mental health-related stigma and duration of untreated psychosis, adjusting for sex, age, educational level, religion and ethnicity.Results: On the 89 participants included in this study, linear regression analysis revealed that overall stigma and the discrimination sub-factor were significant predictors of longer duration of untreated psychosis, whereas logistic regression identified the disclosure sub-factor to be a significant predictor of longer duration of untreated psychosis.Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that stigmatizing views of mental illness from the patient's perspectives can result in delayed access to care. This emphasizes the importance of tackling mental health-related stigma to ensure early treatment and improved outcomes for people experiencing first-episode psychosis. K E Y W O R D Searly intervention, first-episode psychosis, help-seeking, psychosis, stigma

Background: Autistic people have a high likelihood of developing mental health difficulties but a low chance of receiving effective mental health care. Therefore, there is a need to identify and examine strategies to improve mental health care for autistic people. Aims: To identify strategies that have been implemented to improve access, experiences of care and mental health outcomes for autistic adults and examine evidence on their acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness. Method: A co-produced systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, medRxiv and PsyArXiv were searched. We included all study designs reporting acceptability or feasibility outcomes and empirical quantitative study designs reporting effectiveness outcomes. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach. Results: A total of 29 articles were identified. These included 16 studies of adapted mental health interventions, seven studies of service improvements and six studies of bespoke mental health interventions developed for autistic people. There was no conclusive evidence on effectiveness. However, most bespoke and adapted approaches appeared to be feasible and acceptable. Identified adaptations appeared to be acceptable and feasible, including increasing knowledge and detection of autism, providing environmental adjustments and communication accommodations, accommodating individual differences, and modifying the structure and content of interventions. Conclusion: Many identified strategies are feasible and acceptable and can be readily implemented in services with the potential to make mental health care more suitable for autistic people, but important research gaps remain. Future research should address these and investigate a co-produced package of service improvement measures.

IntroductionTo improve access to assistive products (APs) globally, data must be available to inform evidence-based decision-making, policy development and evaluation, and market-shaping interventions.MethodsThis systematic review was undertaken to identify studies presenting population-based estimates of need and coverage for five APs (hearing aids, limb prostheses, wheelchairs, glasses and personal digital assistants) grouped by four functional domains (hearing, mobility, vision and cognition).ResultsData including 656 AP access indicators were extracted from 207 studies, most of which (n=199, 96%) were cross-sectional, either collecting primary (n=167) or using secondary (n=32) data. There was considerable heterogeneity in assessment approaches used and how AP indicators were reported; over half (n=110) used a combination of clinical and self-reported assessment data. Of 35 studies reporting AP use out of all people with functional difficulty in the corresponding functional domains, the proportions ranged from 4.5% to 47.0% for hearing aids, from 0.9% to 17.6% for mobility devices, and from 0.1% to 86.6% for near and distance glasses. Studies reporting AP need indicators demonstrated >60% unmet need for each of the five APs in most settings.ConclusionVariation in definitions of indicators of AP access have likely led to overestimates/underestimates of need and coverage, particularly, where the relationship between functioning difficulty and the need for an AP is complex. This review demonstrates high unmet need for APs globally, due in part to disparate data across this sector, and emphasises the need to standardise AP data collection and reporting strategies to provide a comparable evidence base to improve access to APs.

No abstract