BackgroundPsychological therapy is effective for symptoms of mental distress, but many groups with high levels of mental distress face significant barriers in terms of access to care, as current interventions may not be sensitive to their needs or their understanding of mental health. There is a need to develop forms of psychological therapy that are acceptable to these groups, feasible to deliver in routine settings, and clinically and cost effective.MethodsWe developed a culturally sensitive wellbeing intervention with individual, group and sign-posting elements, and tested its feasibility and acceptability for patients from ethnic minorities and older people in an exploratory randomised trial.ResultsWe recruited 57 patients (57% of our target) from 4 disadvantaged localities in the NW of England. The results of the exploratory trial suggest that the group receiving the wellbeing interventions improved compared to the group receiving usual care. For elders, the largest effects were on CORE-OM and PHQ-9. For ethnic minority patients, the largest effect was on PHQ-9. Qualitative data suggested that patients found the intervention acceptable, both in terms of content and delivery.ConclusionsThis exploratory trial provides some evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of a wellbeing intervention for older and ethnic minority groups experiencing anxiety and depression, although challenges in recruitment and engagement remain. Evidence from our exploratory study of wellbeing interventions should inform new substantive trial designs.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN68572159

BackgroundCommon mental health problems impose substantial challenges to patients, carers, and health care systems. A range of interventions have demonstrable efficacy in improving the lives of people experiencing such problems. However many people are disadvantaged, either because they are unable to access primary care, or because access does not lead to adequate help. New methods are needed to understand the problems of access and generate solutions. In this paper we describe our methodological approach to managing multiple and diverse sources of evidence, within a research programme to increase equity of access to high quality mental health services in primary care.MethodsWe began with a scoping review to identify the range and extent of relevant published material, and establish key concepts related to access. We then devised a strategy to collect - in parallel - evidence from six separate sources: a systematic review of published quantitative data on access-related studies; a meta-synthesis of published qualitative data on patient perspectives; dialogues with local stakeholders; a review of grey literature from statutory and voluntary service providers; secondary analysis of patient transcripts from previous qualitative studies; and primary data from interviews with service users and carers.We synthesised the findings from these diverse sources, made judgements on key emerging issues in relation to needs and services, and proposed a range of potential interventions. These proposals were debated and refined using iterative electronic and focus group consultation procedures involving international experts, local stakeholders and service users.ConclusionsOur methods break new ground by generating and synthesising multiple sources of evidence, connecting scientific understanding with the perspectives of users, in order to develop innovative ways to meet the mental health needs of under-served groups.

There was a strong, even dominant, ethos of risk management and keeping people safe. Managing individual needs while maintaining a safe care home environment clearly is a constant dynamic interpersonal process of negotiating and balancing competing interests for care home managers.

Background Despite the availability of effective evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety, many 'harder-to-reach' social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement.

No abstract

Rationale: The demographic, physiological, and computed tomography (CT) features associated with pneumothorax in smokers with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not clearly defined.Objectives: We evaluated the hypothesis that pneumothorax in smokers is associated with male sex, tall and thin stature, airflow obstruction, and increased total and subpleural emphysema. Methods:The study included smokers with and without COPD from the COPDGene Study, with quantitative chest CT analysis. Pleural-based emphysema was assessed on the basis of local histogram measures of emphysema. Pneumothorax history was defined by subject self-report.Measurements and Main Results: Pneumothorax was reported in 286 (3.2%) of 9,062 participants. In all participants, risk of prior pneumothorax was significantly higher in men (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.22) and non-Hispanic white subjects (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.34-2.69). Risk of prior pneumothorax was associated with increased percent CT emphysema in all participants and participants with COPD (OR, 1.04 for each 1% increase in emphysema; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06). Increased pleural-based emphysema was independently associated with risk of past pneumothorax in all participants (OR, 1.05 for each 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10). In smokers with normal spirometry, risk of past pneumothorax was associated with non-Hispanic white race and lifetime smoking intensity (OR, 1.20 for every 10 pack-years; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33).Conclusions: Among smokers, pneumothorax is associated with male sex, non-Hispanic white race, and increased percentage of total and subpleural CT emphysema. Pneumothorax was not independently associated with height or lung function, even in participants with COPD.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00608764).

Background Depression and debt are common in the UK. Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer) aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the addition of a primary care debt counselling advice service to usual care for patients with depression and debt. However, the study was terminated early during the internal pilot trial phase because of recruitment delays. This report describes the rationale, methods and findings of the pilot study, and implications for future research. Objectives The overarching aim of the internal pilot was to identify and resolve problems, thereby assessing the feasibility of the main trial. The specific objectives were to confirm methods for practice recruitment and the ability to recruit patients via the proposed approaches; to determine the acceptability of the study interventions and outcome measures; to assess contamination; to confirm the randomisation method for main trial and the level of participant attrition; and to check the robustness of data collection systems. Design An adaptive, parallel, two-group multicentre randomised controlled pilot trial with a nested mixed-methods process and economic evaluation. Both individual- and cluster (general practice)-level were was used in the pilot phase to assign participants to intervention or control groups. Setting General practices in England and Wales. Participants Individuals were included who were aged ≥ 18 years, scored ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory II and self-identified as having debt worries. The main exclusion criteria were being actively suicidal or psychotic and/or severely depressed and unresponsive to treatment; having a severe addiction to alcohol/illicit drugs; being unable/unwilling to give written informed consent; currently participating in other research including follow-up phases; having received Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) debt advice in the past year; and not wanting debt advice via a general practice. Interventions The participants in the intervention group were given debt advice provided by the CAB and shared biopsychosocial assessment, in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) and two debt advice leaflets. The participants in the control group were given advice leaflets provided by the general practitioner and TAU only. Main outcome measures (1) Outcomes of the pilot trial – the proportion of eligible patients who consented, the number of participants recruited compared with target, assessment of contamination, and assessment of patient satisfaction with intervention and outcome measures. (2) Participant outcomes – primary – Beck Depression Inventory II; secondary – psychological well-being, health and social care utilisation, service satisfaction, substance misuse, record of priority/non-priority debts, life events and difficulties, and explanatory measures. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 4 months post randomisation. Other data sources – qualitative interviews were conducted with participants, clinicians and CAB advisors. Results Of the 238 expressions of interest screened, 61 participants (26%) were recruited and randomised (32 in the intervention group and 29 in the control group). All participants provided baseline outcomes and 52 provided the primary outcome at 4 months’ follow-up (14.7% dropout). Seventeen participants allocated to the intervention saw a CAB advisor. Descriptive statistics are reported for participants with complete outcomes at baseline and 4 months’ follow-up. Our qualitative findings suggest that the relationship between debt and depression is complex, and the impact of each on the other is compounded by other psychological, social and contextual influences. Conclusions As a result of low recruitment, this trial was terminated at the internal pilot phase and was too small for inferential statistical analysis. We recommend ways to reduce this risk when conducting complex trials among vulnerable populations recruited in community settings. These cover trial design, the design and delivery of interventions, recruitment strategies and support for sites. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79705874. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Mark Gabbay and Adele Ring are part-funded by NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North West Coast and Richard Byng and Rod S Taylor, Vashti Berry and Elizabeth Shaw part-funded by NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula.

No abstract