Anna Hunt

Purpose: Hospital Emergency Departments are increasingly playing a role in the care of young people experiencing suicidal crisis. Autistic young people, who already experience elevated rates of suicidal thoughts and death by suicide, may face particular difficulties in such environments. Methods: This retrospective medical records review explored patterns of Emergency Department attendance for suicidal crisis among young people (aged 8–16 years) attending a UK paediatric hospital between 2019 and 2021. Anonymised clinical records from 338 young people were analysed using descriptive and exploratory statistics. Results: 35.8% of attendees were autistic and 62.0% of those were female. Autistic young people were attending at significantly younger ages than non-autistic young people, and were significantly more likely to be known to mental health services and to have attended the Emergency Department previously for suicide ideation. Conclusion: Findings indicate that autistic young people, and in particular autistic females, were over-represented in crisis presentations, despite previous attempts to seek help. Further research is needed to understand what could help prevent autistic young people from reaching crisis, and what support may be beneficial in the Emergency Department to de-escalate crises, improve wellbeing, and prevent re-attendance.

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10–35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference –0.46, 95% confidence interval –2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval –0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (–£163, 95% confidence interval –£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients’ quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care.Aim: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback.Design and setting: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices.Method: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10–35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks.Results: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference −0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P= 0.025 andP= 0.010, respectively).Conclusion: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Objective The social distancing measures governments implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have had substantial impacts. For some communities, these impacts will be disproportionate, with those communities experiencing inequalities, marginalisation or discrimination facing specific challenges. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and allied (LGBQ+) communities experience a range of well-being inequalities that may have been impacted by the pandemic. The study aimed to assess the comparative impact of the UK’s response to COVID-19 on LGBQ+ communities. Design A mixed-method explanatory sequential study of the general population using a cross-sectional online survey and semistructured interviews. Setting Community, North West of England. Participants Adults aged 18 years and over; 1540 participated in the survey (192, 12%, LGBQ+) with 49 undergoing semistructured interviews (15 LGBQ+) during spring and summer of 2020. Results Survey findings indicated that LGBQ+ people experienced similar positive and negative impacts to the rest of the population, but some negative impacts were more marked among the LGBQ+ community. LGBQ+ participants were more likely to disagree that ‘the government considered the impact on people like you’ when preparing guidance. They were significantly more likely to report being unable to access sufficient food and required medication, eating less healthily, exercising less regularly, experiencing poorer quality sleep and taking more pain medicine than usual. Interview data supported these differences; isolation, being unable to access social networks and concerns about health were commonly discussed by the LGBQ+ participants. Positive impacts, including better work–life balance, were similar across both groups. Conclusions The findings indicate LGBQ+ communities’ wellbeing inequalities have been compounded by the social distancing restrictions, for example, by impacts on social networks increasing loneliness. Preparedness planning for future pandemics should include equality impact assessments for potential interventions.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is first diagnosed during middle childhood, when patterns of difficulty are often established. Pre-emptive approaches that strengthen developing cognitive systems could offer an alternative to post-diagnostic interventions. This proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial (RCT) tested whether computerised gaze-based attention training is feasible and improves attention in infants liable to develop ADHD. Forty-three 9- to 16-month-old infants with a first-degree relative with ADHD were recruited (11/2015–11/2018) at two UK sites and randomised with minimisation by site and sex to receive 9 weekly sessions of either (a) gaze-contingent attention training (intervention; n = 20); or (b) infant-friendly passive viewing of videos (control, n = 23). Sessions were delivered at home with blinded outcome assessments. The primary outcome was a composite of attention measures jointly analysed via a multivariate ANCOVA with a combined effect size (ES) from coefficients at baseline, midpoint and endpoint (Registration: ISRCTN37683928). Uptake and compliance was good but intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences between 20 intervention and 23 control infants on primary (ES −0.4, 95% CI −0.9 to 0.2; Complier-Average-Causal Effect ES −0.6, 95% CI −1.6 to 0.5) or secondary outcomes (behavioural attention). There were no adverse effects on sleep but a small increase in post-intervention session fussiness. Although feasible, there was no support for short-term effects of gaze-based attention training on attention skills in early ADHD. Longer-term outcomes remain to be assessed. The study highlights challenges and opportunities for pre-emptive intervention approaches to the management of ADHD.

Background: There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. Objective: The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. Design: This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. Setting: General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. Participants: Individuals aged 18–74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. Intervention: At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Results: Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (–0.037, 95% confidence interval –0.059 to –0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (–0.019, 95% confidence interval –0.035 to –0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval –£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. Conclusions: Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. 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. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings. A total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group. Among patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.)

Background: People who self-harm are at high risk for future suicide and often suffer considerable emotional distress. Depression is common among people who self-harm and may be an underlying driver of self-harm behaviour. Self-harm is often repeated, and risk of repetition is highest immediately after an act of self-harm. Readily accessible brief talking therapies show promise in helping people who self-harm, but further evaluation of these approaches is needed. A brief talking therapy intervention for depression and self-harm has been designed for use in a community setting. This mixed methods feasibility study with repeated measures will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the Community Outpatient Psychological Engagement Service for Self-Harm (COPESS) for people with self-harm and depression in the community, compared to routine care. Methods: Sixty participants with a history of self-harm within the last six months, who are also currently depressed, will be recruited to take part in a feasibility single-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive COPESS plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Recruitment will be via General Practitioners (GP) and self-referral. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will be assessed via quantitative and qualitative methods including measures of recruitment and retention to the feasibility trial, participants’ experience of therapy, completion/completeness of outcome measures at relevant time-points and completion of a service use questionnaire. Discussion: The results will indicate whether it is feasible to conduct a definitive full trial to determine whether COPESS is a clinically and cost effective intervention for people who self-harm in the community. Qualitative and quantitative data will in addition help identify potential strengths and/or challenges of implementing brief community-based interventions for people who self-harm. Trial registration: NCT04191122 registered 9th December 2019.