The online world may provide an alternative means to engage young people and students with suicidal feelings, who are typically reluctant to seek help. We aimed to map, characterise and obtain user evaluation of current online suicide support for this group in order to assess the usefulness of current provision and how it may be improved. We conducted a mixed-methods study, comprised of an internet search, content analysis of site features and qualitative interviews with site users: 9 young people and 4 general practitioners. Data collection took place in 2019 and 2020 in the UK.Young people participants were recruited through the well-being networks of a large University in South-West England and via a national young person's mental health app. General practitioners were recruited locally through professional networks. We identified a wide range of easily accessible online support, including examples of interactive services, such as live chat and text messaging, but a lack of support that is both suicide-specific and young adult-specific, and an absence of online suicide or mental health crisis support services tailored specifically for students. Qualitative data showed that clarity, brevity and immediacy are the most important facets of engaging crisis help for young people, and that young people may prefer to use textbased rather than verbal forms of communication when seeking help. Few services provided access to active peer support, outside of lived-experience stories, which were evaluated as both valuable and potentially harmful. There is a need to further develop tailored suicide specific online crisis support for young people and students, which is able to 'speak to' their age-specific needs and preferences. While lived experience may provide a valuable means of supporting young audiences, caution is required since this may have unintended negative consequences and further research is needed to understand the safe framing of such material.
Rationale
Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have been identified as novel therapeutics for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) based on pre-clinical models; however, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on their effectiveness and safety.
Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with GAD treated with dried flower, oil-based preparations, or a combination of both CBMPs.
Methods
A prospective cohort study of patients with GAD (n = 302) enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry prescribed oil or flower-based CBMPs was performed. Primary outcomes were changes in generalised anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaires at 1, 3, and 6 months compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes were single-item sleep quality scale (SQS) and health-related quality of life index (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at the same time points. These changes were assessed by paired t-tests. Adverse events were assessed in line with CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) v4.0.
Results
Improvements in anxiety, sleep quality and quality of life were observed at each time point (p < 0.001). Patients receiving CBMPs had improvements in GAD-7 at all time points (1 month: difference −5.3 (95% CI −4.6 to −6.1), 3 months: difference −5.5 (95% CI −4.7 to −6.4), 6 months: difference −4.5 (95% CI −3.2 to −5.7)). Thirty-nine participants (12.9%) reported 269 adverse events in the follow-up period.
Conclusions
Prescription of CBMPs in those with GAD is associated with clinically significant improvements in anxiety with an acceptable safety profile in a real-world setting. Randomised trials are required as a next step to investigate the efficacy of CBMPs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.