Objective: We report a review of outcomes in schizophrenia in the twenty‐first century, replicating and extending work undertaken by the late Richard Warner in his seminal book, “Recovery from Schizophrenia: Psychiatry and Political Economy” (1985;2004).Method: Warner's methods were followed as closely as possible. Only observational/naturalistic studies were included. Six scientific databases were searched from 2000 to 2020. 6,640 records were retrieved. 47 met inclusion criteria.Results: Overall, complete recovery is higher in this study than in Warner's (37.75% cf 20.4%), especially for first episode psychosis (FEP) (57.1% cf 20.7%). Clinical recovery, annualized remission rate (ARR), and employment outcomes were significantly superior for first episode psychosis compared with multiple episode psychosis (MEP). ARR shows a trend toward reduction over time, from 2.2 before the financial crash of 2008 to 1.6 after (t = 1.85 df 40 p = .07). The decline is statistically significant for the MEP group (t = 2.32 df18 p = .03). There were no differences in outcome by region, sample characteristics, outcome measures used, or quality of studies. Heterogeneity of clinical outcome measures across the literature makes evidence synthesis difficult. Weak and inconsistent reporting of functional and employment outcomes mean that findings lack meaning with respect to lived experience.Conclusion: Future research strategies should aim to reduce heterogeneity in clinical outcome measures and to increase the emphasis on capture and reporting of more sophisticated measures of social and functional outcome. Outcome domains should be disaggregated rather than conflated into unitary recovery constructs.

In the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting. A three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people’s preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set. A core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTNERS2 study aims and objectives of developing an innovative primary care-based model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia.

There has been continuing change in the nature of care homes in the UK with 80 % of residents now living with some form of dementia or memory problem. Caring in this environment can be complex, challenging and stressful for staff; this can affect the quality of care provided to residents, lead to staff strain and burnout, and increase sickness, absence and turnover rates. It is therefore important to find interventions to increase the wellbeing of staff that will not only benefit staff themselves but also residents and care providers. Mindfulness training is known to be effective in treating a variety of physical and mental health conditions. The study uses mixed methods centred on a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Thirty care homes in Wales are implementing a brief web-based mindfulness training course, starting in random sequence. Four to ten consenting staff from each facility undertake the course and complete validated questionnaires at baseline and after eight and 20 weeks. We shall also interview a stratified sample of ten trained staff and analyse the transcripts thematically. The primary outcome is stress; secondary outcomes include job satisfaction, attitudes towards residents and sickness absence rates. With increasing numbers of people living with dementia in care homes and causing stress in their carers, it is important to evaluate support strategies for staff. Mindfulness-based therapies may be of potential benefit and need detailed examination. ISRCTN registry. ISRCTN80487202 . Registered 24 July 2013.

Summary: Social prescribing is poorly defined and there is little evidence for its effectiveness. It cannot address the social determinants of mental health and it is unlikely to produce enduring change for that part of the population that suffers the worst physical and mental health, namely the most deprived and marginalised. It has emerged at a time of growing health inequity. This has occurred alongside the neglect of social care and of the social aspects of mental health intervention. Social prescribing gives a false impression of addressing social factors, and as such is counterproductive. We can do better than this.

Introduction: China’s future major health problem will be the management of chronic diseases – of which mental health is a major one. An instrument is needed to measure mental health inclusion outcomes for mental health services in Hong Kong and mainland China as they strive to promote a more inclusive society for their citizens and particular disadvantaged groups. Aim: To report on the analysis of structural equivalence and item differentiation in two mentally unhealthy and one healthy sample in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Method: The mental health sample in Hong Kong was made up of non-governmental organisation (NGO) referrals meeting the selection/exclusion criteria (being well enough to be interviewed, having a formal psychiatric diagnosis and living in the community). A similar sample in the United Kingdom meeting the same selection criteria was obtained from a community mental health organisation, equivalent to the NGOs in Hong Kong. Exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression were conducted. Results: The single-variable, self-rated ‘overall social inclusion’ differs significantly between all of the samples, in the way we would expect from previous research, with the healthy population feeling more included than the serious mental illness (SMI) groups. In the exploratory factor analysis, the first two factors explain between a third and half of the variance, and the single variable which enters into all the analyses in the first factor is having friends to visit the home. All the regression models were significant; however, in Hong Kong sample, only one-fifth of the total variance is explained. Conclusion: The structural findings imply that the social and community opportunities profile–Chinese version (SCOPE-C) gives similar results when applied to another culture. As only one-fifth of the variance of ‘overall inclusion’ was explained in the Hong Kong sample, it may be that the instrument needs to be refined using different or additional items within the structural domains of inclusion.

Background: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components.Aims: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care.Method: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA).Results: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group.Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.