Background: DIALOG+ was developed as a computer-mediated intervention, consisting of a structured assessment of patients' concerns combined with a solution-focused approach to initiate change. This study tested the effectiveness of DIALOG+ in the community treatment of patients with psychosis. Method: This was a pragmatic, exploratory, parallel-group, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Clinicians within community teams - along with patients with psychosis under their care - were randomised to use DIALOG+ once per month for 6 months or an active control. The primary outcome (subjective quality of life, SQOL) and secondary outcomes were assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months by blinded assessors and analysed using mixed-effect models. Results: A total of 49 clinicians and 179 patients were randomised. Implementation of DIALOG+ was variable, with an average of 1.8 sessions (SD = 1.6) in the first 3 months and 1.1 (SD = 1.2) in the following 3 months. Patients in the DIALOG+ arm had better SQOL at 3, 6 and 12 months (p = 0.035, 0.058 and 0.014, respectively; Cohen's d = 0.29-0.34). They also had significantly fewer unmet needs at 3 and 6 months, fewer general psychopathological symptoms at all time points and better objective social outcomes at 12 months, with no significant differences in other outcomes. Overall care costs were lower in the intervention group. Conclusion: Despite variable implementation, DIALOG+ is a beneficial intervention for community patients with psychosis. As a non-expensive and potentially cost-saving, generic intervention, DIALOG+ may be widely used and may improve the effectiveness of community treatment. Further trials should test DIALOG+ in different patient groups and contexts.

BackgroundBefriending by volunteers has the potential to reduce the frequent social isolation of patients with schizophrenia and thus improve health outcomes. However, trial-based evidence for its effectiveness is limited.AimsTo conduct a randomised controlled trial of befriending for patients with schizophrenia or related disorders.MethodPatients were randomised to a befriending programme for 1 year or to receive information about social activities only (trial registration: ISRCTN14021839). Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation at the end of the programme; at 12 months and at a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome was daily time spent in activities (using the Time Use Survey (TUS)) with intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 124 patients were randomised (63 intervention, 61 active control) and 92 (74%) were followed up at 1 year. In the intervention group, 49 (78%) met a volunteer at least once and 31 (49%) had more than 12 meetings. At 1 year, mean TUS scores were more than three times higher in both groups with no significant difference between them (adjusted difference 8.9, 95% CI −40.7 to 58.5, P = 0.72). There were no significant differences in quality of life, symptoms or self-esteem. However, patients in the intervention group had significantly more social contacts than those in the control group at the end of the 12-month period. This difference held true at the follow-up 6 months later.ConclusionsAlthough no difference was found on the primary outcome, the findings suggest that befriending may have a lasting effect on increasing social contacts. It may be used more widely to reduce the social isolation of patients with schizophrenia.Declaration of interestNone.

BackgroundDIALOG+ is a new intervention to make routine community mental health meetings therapeutically effective. It involves a structured assessment of patient concerns and a solution-focused approach to address them. In a randomised controlled trial, DIALOG+ was associated with better subjective quality of life and other outcomes in patients with psychosis, but it was not clear how this was achieved. This study explored the possible mechanisms.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods process evaluation within a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians who experienced DIALOG+ and were analysed using thematic analysis. The content of DIALOG+ sessions was recorded and analysed according to (i) the type of actions agreed during sessions and (ii) the domains discussed. The subjective quality of life measure was analysed with mixed-effects models to explore whether the effect of DIALOG+ was limited to life domains that had been addressed in sessions or consistent across all domains.ResultsFour qualitative themes emerged regarding the mechanisms of DIALOG+: (1) a comprehensive structure; (2) self-reflection; (3) therapeutic self-expression; and (4) empowerment. Patients took responsibility for the majority of actions agreed during sessions (65%). The treatment effect on subjective quality of life was largest for living situation (accommodation and people that the patient lives with) and mental health. Two of these domains were among the three most commonly discussed in DIALOG+ sessions (accommodation, mental health, and physical health).ConclusionDIALOG+ initiates positive, domain-specific change in the areas that are addressed in sessions. It provides a comprehensive and solution-focused structure to routine meetings, encourages self-reflection and expression, and empowers patients. Future research should strengthen and monitor these factors.Trial RegistrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN34757603.

et al. Effective patient-clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017;5(6). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0108-10023. The contractual start date was in April 2010. The final report began editorial review in October 2015 and was accepted for publication in August 2016. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, CCF, NETSCC, PGfAR or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publicatio...

ObjectivesTo review systematically the literature on patients’ experiences of, and participation in, technology-based monitoring of mental health symptoms. This practice was defined as patients monitoring their mental health symptoms, emotions or behaviours outside of routine clinical appointments by submitting symptom data using technology, with feedback arising from the data (for example, supportive messages or symptom summaries, being sent to the patient, clinician or carer).DesignSystematic review following PRISMA guidelines of studies evaluating technology-based symptom monitoring. Tools from narrative synthesis were used to analyse quantitative findings on participation rates and qualitative findings on patient views.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, Cochrane Registers and Web of Science electronic databases were searched using a combination of ‘psychiatry’, ‘symptom monitoring’ and ‘technology’ descriptors. A secondary hand search was performed in grey literature and references.Results57 papers representing 42 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Technology-based symptom monitoring was used for a range of mental health conditions, either independently of a specific therapeutic intervention or as an integrated component of therapeutic interventions. The majority of studies reported moderate-to-strong rates of participation, though a third reported lower rates. Qualitative feedback suggests that acceptability of monitoring is related to perceived validity, ease of practice, convenient technology, appropriate frequency and helpfulness of feedback, as well as the impact of monitoring on participants’ ability to manage health and personal relationships.ConclusionsSuch symptom monitoring practices appear to be well accepted and may be a feasible complement to clinical practice. However, there is limited availability of data and heterogeneity of studies. Future research should examine robustly patients’ role in the development and evaluation of technology-based symptom monitoring in order to maximise its clinical utility.

BackgroundLarge numbers of patients with psychosis have regular meetings with key clinicians in the community. There is little evidence on how these meetings should be conducted to be therapeutically effective. DIALOG, a computer mediated procedure, was shown to improve outcomes in a European multi-centre trial. DIALOG structures the patient-clinician communication and makes it patient-centred, but does not guide clinicians as to how to respond to patients’ concerns. DIALOG has been further developed into DIALOG+, which uses advanced software and, additionally, provides a four step approach - based on a solution focused model - for addressing patients’ concerns. We designed a cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of DIALOG+ in improving treatment outcomes of patients with psychosis in the community.Methods/designKey workers are recruited from community mental health teams in East London and randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. Out of their case loads, we identify patients with schizophrenia (F 20–29) and a moderate or lower level of subjective quality of life (MANSA score <5), who are treated according to the allocation of their key workers. Key workers in the intervention group are trained in using DIALOG+ and use it with each patient over a six-month period. Control patients rate their satisfaction with life and treatment on a tablet to control for the effect of regular ratings and the use of modern technology. We are recruiting up to 42 key workers to reach a total sample size of 180 patients. Clinical and social outcomes including costs are assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome is subjective quality-of-life at 6 months.DiscussionThe trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel intervention (DIALOG+) which uses modern technology to support routine patient-clinician meetings in community care, makes the communication patient centred and guides patients and clinicians to address concerns. DIALOG+ is a generic and widely applicable intervention. If shown as effective, it can be used to improve outcomes of community care on a large scale, ensuring that routine encounters are therapeutically effective. DIALOG+ can also be implemented across services at relatively low additional costs.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN34757603

BackgroundDIALOG is an intervention to structure the communication between patient and key worker, which has been shown to improve patient outcomes in community mental health care. As part of the intervention, patients provide ratings of their subjective quality of life (SQOL) on eight Likert type items and their treatment satisfaction on three such items. This study explored the psychometric qualities of the outcome data generated in the DIALOG intervention to explore whether they may be used for evaluating treatment outcomes.MethodData were taken from 271 patients who received the DIALOG intervention. All patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder and treated in community mental health care. For SQOL and treatment satisfaction as assessed in the DIALOG intervention, we established the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), the convergent validity of SQOL items (correlation with Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life [MANSA]) and treatment satisfaction items (correlation with Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [CSQ]), the concurrent validity (correlations with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]) and the sensitivity to change (t-test comparing ratings of the first and last intervention). We also explored the factorial structure of the eight SQOL items.ResultsThe internal consistency of the eight SQOL items was .71 and of the three treatment satisfaction items .57. SQOL scores were correlated with the MANSA (r = .95) and PANSS scores (general psychopathology: r = −.37, positive symptoms: r = −.27, negative symptoms: r = −.27). Treatment satisfaction scores were correlated with the CSQ (r = 0.36) and the PANSS (r = −.29, -.20, -.20). SQOL and treatment satisfaction score improved significantly over time. SQOL items loaded on two meaningful factors, one capturing health and personal safety and one reflecting other life domains.ConclusionsThe psychometric qualities of the SQOL scores generated in DIALOG are strong. The properties of the three treatment satisfaction items may be seen as acceptable. Although DIALOG has been designed as a therapeutic intervention, it can generate outcome data on SQOL and treatment satisfaction with acceptable psychometric qualities.

IntroductionSocial isolation is common in patients with psychosis and associated with a number of negative outcomes. Programmes in which volunteers provide one-to-one support—often referred to as befriending—have been reputed to achieve favourable outcomes. However, trial-based evidence for their effectiveness is limited.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of one-to-one volunteer support with an active control condition for patients with psychosis over a 1-year period. Patients in the intervention group will receive the support of a volunteer for 1 year, who will meet them weekly and engage them in social and recreational activities. Patients in the control group will not receive support from a volunteer. In both groups, patients will be given a booklet detailing locally available social activities and otherwise receive treatment as usual. Patients, volunteers, clinicians and researchers involved in the delivery of the intervention will not be blinded to group assignment, while researchers carrying out data collection will be blinded. Data collection will be conducted at baseline, at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the amount of time spent engaging in social activities per day. Secondary outcomes include symptoms, quality of life, self-esteem and costs of care. Attitudes of volunteers towards mentally ill people will be assessed. Finally, in-depth interviews will be conducted with patients and volunteers.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee London—Camden & Kings Cross (reference 15/LO/0674). The findings of the trial will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals and in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) journals library, and presented at scientific conferences. In addition, findings will be summarised for a lay audience and circulated to all relevant National Health Service (NHS) and voluntary organisations.Trial registration numberISRCTN14021839; Pre-results.