The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. MethodsThe Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A posthoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5•9 months (IQR 4•9-6•5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity.Interpretation We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments w...

No abstract

Digital technology, including the internet, smartphones, and wearables, provides the possibility to bridge the mental health treatment gap by offering flexible and tailored approaches to mental health care that are more accessible and potentially less stigmatising than those currently available. However, the evidence base for digital mental health interventions, including demonstration of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings, remains inadequate. The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for digital technology in mental health care was established to identify research priorities that reflect the perspectives and unmet needs of people with lived experience of mental health problems and use of mental health services, their carers, and health-care practitioners. 644 participants contributed 1369 separate questions, which were reduced by qualitative thematic analysis into six overarching themes. Following removal of out-of-scope questions and a comprehensive search of existing evidence, 134 questions were verified as uncertainties suitable for research. These questions were then ranked online and in workshops by 628 participants to produce a shortlist of 26. The top ten research priorities, which were identified by consensus at a stakeholder workshop, should inform research policy and funding in this field. Identified priorities primarily relate to the safety and efficacy of digital technology interventions in comparison with face-to-face interventions, evidence of population reach, mechanisms of therapeutic change, and the ways in which the effectiveness of digital interventions in combination with human support might be optimised.

Involving service users in research improves its quality and relevance. Many research organizations funding and supporting research now ask researchers about involvement as part of their application process. Some researchers are facing challenges in taking forward involvement as the research infrastructure is not always facilitative. Researchers need greater reward and recognition for carrying out good quality involvement to encourage more effective processes.

No abstract

Background There is a large clinical need for improved treatments for patients with persecutory delusions. We aimed to test whether a new theoretically driven cognitive therapy (the Feeling Safe Programme) would lead to large reductions in persecutory delusions, above non-specific effects of therapy. We also aimed to test treatment effect mechanisms. MethodsWe did a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial to test the Feeling Safe Programme against befriending with the same therapists for patients with persistent persecutory delusions in the context of non-affective psychosis diagnoses. Usual care continued throughout the duration of the trial. The trial took place in community mental health services in three UK National Health Service trusts. Participants were included if they were 16 years or older, had persecutory delusions (as defined by Freeman and Garety) for at least 3 months and held with at least 60% conviction, and had a primary diagnosis of non-affective psychosis from the referring clinical team. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Feeling Safe Programme or the befriending programme, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by therapist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. If an allocation was unmasked then the unmasked assessor was replaced with a new masked assessor. Outcomes were assessed at 0 months, 6 months (primary endpoint), and 12 months. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed within the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0-100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Each intervention was provided individually over 6 months. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18705064. FindingsFrom Feb 8, 2016, to July 26, 2019, 130 patients with persecutory delusions (78 [60%] men; 52 [40%] women, mean age 42 years [SD 12•1, range 17-71]; 86% White, 9% Black, 2% Indian; 2•3% Pakistani; 2% other) were recruited. 64 patients were randomly allocated to the Feeling Safe Programme and 66 patients to befriending. Compared with befriending, the Feeling Safe Programme led to significant end of treatment reductions in delusional conviction (-10•69 [95% CI -19•75 to -1•63], p=0•021, Cohen's d=-0•86) and delusion severity (PSYRATS, -2•94 [-4•58 to -1•31], p<0•0001, Cohen's d=-1•20). More adverse events occurred in the befriending group (68 unrelated adverse events reported in 20 [30%] participants) compared with the Feeling Safe group (53 unrelated adverse events reported in 16 [25%] participants).Interpretation The Feeling Safe Programme led to a significant reduction in persistent persecutory delusions compared with befriending. To our knowledge, these are the largest treatment effects seen for patients with persistent delusions. The principal limitation of our trial was the relatively small sample size when comparing two active treatments, meaning less precision in effect size estimates and lower power to detect moderate treatment differences in secondary o...

IntroductionMany patients with psychosis experience everyday social situations as anxiety-provoking. The fears can arise, for example, from paranoia, hallucinations, social anxiety or negative-self beliefs. The fears lead patients to withdraw from activities, and this isolation leads to a cycle of worsening physical and mental health. Breaking this cycle requires highly active treatment directly in the troubling situations so that patients learn that they can safely and confidently enter them. However patients with psychosis seldom receive such life-changing interventions. To solve this problem we have developed an automated psychological treatment delivered in virtual reality (VR). It allows patients to experience computer simulations of the situations that they find anxiety-provoking. A virtual coach guides patients, using cognitive techniques, in how to overcome their fears. Patients are willing to enter VR simulations of anxiety-provoking situations because they know the simulations are not real, but the learning made transfers to the real world.Methods and analysis432 patients with psychosis and anxious avoidance of social situations will be recruited from National Health Service (NHS) secondary care services. In the gameChange trial, they will be randomised (1:1) to the six-session VR cognitive treatment added to treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Assessments will be conducted at 0, 6 (post-treatment) and 26 weeks by a researcher blind to allocation. The primary outcome is avoidance and distress in real-life situations, using a behavioural assessment task, at 6 weeks. The secondary outcomes are psychiatric symptoms, activity levels and quality of life. All main analyses will be intention-to-treat. Moderation and mediation will be tested. An economic evaluation will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has received ethical approval from the NHS South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0075). A key output will be a high-quality automated VR treatment for patients to overcome anxious avoidance of social situations.Trial registration numberISRCTN17308399.