Background: UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500 000 participants including genetics, environmental data and imaging. An online mental health questionnaire was designed for UK Biobank participants to expand its potential. Aims: Describe the development, implementation and results of this questionnaire. Method: An expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting a patient group. Operational criteria were agreed for defining likely disorder and risk states, including lifetime depression, mania/hypomania, generalised anxiety disorder, unusual experiences and self-harm, and current post-traumatic stress and hazardous/harmful alcohol use. Results: A total of 157 366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Participants were aged 45–82 (53% were ≥65 years) and 57% women. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status. Lifetime depression was a common finding, with 24% (37 434) of participants meeting criteria and current hazardous/harmful alcohol use criteria were met by 21% (32 602), whereas other criteria were met by less than 8% of the participants. There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with a high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation. Conclusions: The UK Biobank questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed because of selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health.

Aims: To review the methods and findings from studies of the therapeutic relationship (TR) in the treatment of severe mental illness. Method: A literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used an operationalised measurement of the TR in the treatment of severe mental illness. Results: Fifteen scales–the majority of which were developed for psychotherapy–and the expressed emotion index have been used. Most scales have acceptable internal, inter-rater and test–retest reliability. As none of the scales has been used in more than five studies, no single scale is widely established in psychiatric research. A more positive relationship consistently predicts a better short-and long-term outcome. It appears that a large global factor accounts for the greatest proportion of the variance in the therapeutic relationship. Conclusions: The therapeutic relationship is a reliable predictor of patient outcome in mainstream psychiatric care. Valid assessments may need to take account of different, specific aspects of the relationship in psychiatric settings such as greater heterogeneity of treatment components and goals, increased variability of setting and the statutory responsibility of the clinician. Methodological progress may require conceptual work to ensure valid assessments of this central element of treatment.

Nonadherence to mental health treatment incurs clinical and economic burdens. The clinician-patient alliance, negotiated through clinical interaction, presents a critical intervention point. Recent medical reviews of communication and adherence behaviour exclude studies with psychiatric samples. The following examines the impact of clinician-patient alliance and communication on adherence in mental health, identifying the specific mechanisms that mobilise patient engagement. In December 2010, a systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Cinahl and yielded 6672 titles. A secondary hand search was performed in relevant journals, grey literature and reference. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The methodological quality overall was moderate. 17 studies reported positive associations with adherence, only four of which employed intervention designs. 10 studies examined the association between clinician-patient alliance and adherence. Subjective ratings of clinical communication styles and messages were assessed in 12 studies. 1 study examined the association between objectively rated communication and adherence. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of methods. Findings were presented as a narrative synthesis. Clinician-patient alliance and communication are associated with more favourable patient adherence. Further research of observer rated communication would better facilitate the application of findings in clinical practice. Establishing agreement on the tasks of treatment, utilising collaborative styles of communication and discussion of treatment specifics may be important for clinicians in promoting cooperation with regimens. These findings align with those in health communication. However, the benefits of shared decision making for adherence in mental health are less conclusive than in general medicine.

Background: Explanatory models of illness may differ between ethnic groups and influence treatment satisfaction and compliance.Aims: To compare explanatory models among people with schizophrenia from four cultural backgrounds and explore their relationship with clinical and psychological characteristics.Method: Explanatory models, insight, treatment compliance, health locus of control, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, therapeutic relationships and symptomatology were assessed in UK Whites and Bangladeshis, African-Caribbeans and West Africans.Results: When biological and supernatural causes of illness were compared, Whites cited biological causes more frequently than the three non-White groups, who cited supernatural causes more frequently. When biological and social causes were compared, Whites cited biological causes more frequently than African-Caribbeans and Bangladeshis, who cited social causes more frequently. A biological explanatory model was related to enhanced treatment satisfaction and therapeutic relationships but not treatment compliance.Conclusions: Explanatory models of illness contribute to patient satisfaction with treatment and relationships with clinicians.

Objective: To investigate how doctors engage with patients with psychotic illness in routine consultations. Design: Conversation analysis of 32 consultations between psychiatrists and patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Setting: Two psychiatric outpatient clinics in east London and south west London. Participants: 7 psychiatrists and 32 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Main outcome measure: Mutual engagement in communication during the consultation. Results: Patients actively attempted to talk about the content of their psychotic symptoms in consultations by asking direct questions, repeating their questions and utterances, and producing these utterances in the concluding part of the consultation. In response, doctors hesitated, responded with a question rather than with an answer, and smiled or laughed (when informal carers were present), indicating that they were reluctant to engage with patients' concerns about their psychotic symptoms. Conclusions: Patients repeatedly attempted to talk about the content of their psychotic symptoms, which was a source of noticeable interactional tension and difficulty. Addressing patients' concerns about their illness may lead to a more satisfactory outcome of the consultation and improve engagement of such patients in the health services.

From the earliest studies of doctor-patient interaction (Byrne & Long, 1976), it has been recognized that treatment recommendations may be expressed in more or less authoritative ways, based on their design and delivery. There are clear differences between I'm going to start you on X and We can give you X to try and Would you like me to give you X? Yet little is known about this variation, its contexts, or its consequences. In this paper, we develop a basic taxonomy of treatment recommendations in primary care as a first step toward a more comprehensive investigation. We take as our point of departure the observation that treatment recommendations such as those above represent not only different formulations but also different social actions. We distinguish five main treatment recommendation actions: pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, and assertions. We ask: what are the main dimensions on which these recommendations vary and to what end? And what sorts of factors shape a clinician's use of one action type over another with respect to recommending a medication in the primary care context?