Uses and Misuses of Recorded Mental Health Lived Experience Narratives in Healthcare and Community Settings: Systematic Review

The Implementation of Recommender Systems for Mental Health Recovery Narratives: Evaluation of Use and Performance

BACKGROUND

Recommender systems help narrow down a large range of items to a smaller, personalized set. NarraGive is a first-in-field hybrid recommender system for mental health recovery narratives, recommending narratives based on their content and narrator characteristics (using content-based filtering) and on narratives beneficially impacting other similar users (using collaborative filtering). NarraGive is integrated into the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) intervention, a web application providing access to the NEON Collection of recovery narratives.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the 3 recommender system algorithms used in NarraGive to inform future interventions using recommender systems for lived experience narratives.

METHODS

Using a recently published framework for evaluating recommender systems to structure the analysis, we compared the content-based filtering algorithm and collaborative filtering algorithms by evaluating the accuracy (how close the predicted ratings are to the true ratings), precision (the proportion of the recommended narratives that are relevant), diversity (how diverse the recommended narratives are), coverage (the proportion of all available narratives that can be recommended), and unfairness (whether the algorithms produce less accurate predictions for disadvantaged participants) across gender and ethnicity. We used data from all participants in 2 parallel-group, waitlist control clinical trials of the NEON intervention (NEON trial: N=739; NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems [NEON-O] trial: N=1023). Both trials included people with self-reported mental health problems who had and had not used statutory mental health services. In addition, NEON trial participants had experienced self-reported psychosis in the previous 5 years. Our evaluation used a database of Likert-scale narrative ratings provided by trial participants in response to validated narrative feedback questions.

RESULTS

Participants from the NEON and NEON-O trials provided 2288 and 1896 narrative ratings, respectively. Each rated narrative had a median of 3 ratings and 2 ratings, respectively. For the NEON trial, the content-based filtering algorithm performed better for coverage; the collaborative filtering algorithms performed better for accuracy, diversity, and unfairness across both gender and ethnicity; and neither algorithm performed better for precision. For the NEON-O trial, the content-based filtering algorithm did not perform better on any metric; the collaborative filtering algorithms performed better on accuracy and unfairness across both gender and ethnicity; and neither algorithm performed better for precision, diversity, or coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical population may be associated with recommender system performance. Recommender systems are susceptible to a wide range of undesirable biases. Approaches to mitigating these include providing enough initial data for the recommender system (to prevent overfitting), ensuring that items can be accessed outside the recommender system (to prevent a feedback loop between accessed items and recommended items), and encouraging participants to provide feedback on every narrative they interact with (to prevent participants from only providing feedback when they have strong opinions).

Perception and appropriation of a web-based recovery narratives intervention: qualitative interview study

Introduction

Mental health recovery narratives are widely available to the public, and can benefit people affected by mental health problems. The NEON Intervention is a novel web-based digital health intervention providing access to the NEON Collection of recovery narratives. The NEON Intervention was found to be effective and cost-effective in the NEON-O Trial for people with nonpsychosis mental health problems (ISRCTN63197153), and has also been evaluated in the NEON Trial for people with psychosis experience (ISRCTN11152837). We aimed to document NEON Intervention experiences, through an integrated process evaluation.

Methods

Analysis of interviews with a purposive sample of intervention arm participants who had completed trial participation.

Results

We interviewed 34 NEON Trial and 20 NEON-O Trial participants (mean age 40.4 years). Some users accessed narratives through the NEON Intervention almost daily, whilst others used it infrequently or not at all. Motivations for trial participation included: exploring the NEON Intervention as an alternative or addition to existing mental health provision; searching for answers about mental health experiences; developing their practice as a mental health professional (for a subset who were mental health professionals); claiming payment vouchers. High users (10 + narrative accesses) described three forms of appropriation: distracting from difficult mental health experiences; providing an emotional boost; sustaining a sense of having a social support network. Most participants valued the scale of the NEON Collection (n = 659 narratives), but some found it overwhelming. Many felt they could describe the characteristics of a desired narrative that would benefit their mental health. Finding a narrative meeting their desires enhanced engagement, but not finding one reduced engagement. Narratives in the NEON Collection were perceived as authentic if they acknowledged the difficult reality of mental health experiences, appeared to describe real world experiences, and described mental health experiences similar to those of the participant.

Discussion

We present recommendations for digital health interventions incorporating collections of digital narratives: (1) make the scale and diversity of the collection visible; (2) provide delivery mechanisms that afford appropriation; (3) enable contributors to produce authentic narratives; (4) enable learning by healthcare professionals; (5) consider use to address loneliness.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online recorded recovery narratives in improving quality of life for people with non-psychotic mental health problems: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Narratives describing first-hand experiences of recovery from mental health problems are widely available. Emerging evidence suggests that engaging with mental health recovery narratives can benefit people experiencing mental health problems, but no randomized controlled trial has been conducted as yet. We developed the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web application providing self-guided and recommender systems access to a collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives (n=659). We investigated whether NEON Intervention access benefited adults experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems by conducting a pragmatic parallel-group randomized trial, with usual care as control condition. The primary endpoint was quality of life at week 52 assessed by the Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA). Secondary outcomes were psychological distress, hope, self-efficacy, and meaning in life at week 52. Between March 9, 2020 and March 26, 2021, we recruited 1,023 participants from across England (the target based on power analysis was 994), of whom 827 (80.8%) identified as White British, 811 (79.3%) were female, 586 (57.3%) were employed, and 272 (26.6%) were unemployed. Their mean age was 38.4±13.6 years. Mood and/or anxiety disorders (N=626, 61.2%) and stress-related disorders (N=152, 14.9%) were the most common mental health problems. At week 52, our intention-to-treat analysis found a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.01-0.26, p=0.041) in the MANSA score between the intervention and control groups, corresponding to a mean change of 1.56 scale points per participant, which indicates that the intervention increased quality of life. We also detected a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.05-0.40, p=0.014) between the groups in the score on the "presence of meaning" subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, corresponding to a mean change of 1.1 scale points per participant. We found an incremental gain of 0.0142 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% credible interval: 0.0059 to 0.0226) and a £178 incremental increase in cost (95% credible interval: -£154 to £455) per participant, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,526 per QALY compared with usual care. This was lower than the £20,000 per QALY threshold used by the National Health Service in England, indicating that the intervention would be a cost-effective use of health service resources. In the subgroup analysis including participants who had used specialist mental health services at baseline, the intervention both reduced cost (-£98, 95% credible interval: -£606 to £309) and improved QALYs (0.0165, 95% credible interval: 0.0057 to 0.0273) per participant as compared to usual care. We conclude that the NEON Intervention is an effective and cost-effective new intervention for people experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems.

Designing a Library of Lived Experience for Mental Health: integrated realist synthesis and experience-based co-design study in UK mental health services

OBJECTIVE

Living Library events involve people being trained as living 'Books', who then discuss aspects of their personal experiences in direct conversation with attendees, referred to as 'Readers'. This study sought to generate a realist programme theory and a theory-informed implementation guide for a Library of Lived Experience for Mental Health (LoLEM).

DESIGN

Integrated realist synthesis and experience-based co-design.

SETTING

Ten online workshops with participants based in the North of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one participants with a combination of personal experience of using mental health services, caring for someone with mental health difficulties and/or working in mental health support roles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 30 published and grey literature evidence sources which were integrated with data from 10 online co-design workshops conducted over 12 months. The analysis generated a programme theory comprising five context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Findings highlight how establishing psychological safety is foundational to productive Living Library events (CMO 1). For Readers, direct conversations humanise others' experiences (CMO 2) and provide the opportunity to flexibly explore new ways of living (CMO 3). Through participation in a Living Library, Books may experience personal empowerment (CMO 4), while the process of self-authoring and co-editing their story (CMO 5) can contribute to personal development. This programme theory informed the co-design of an implementation guide highlighting the importance of tailoring event design and participant support to the contexts in which LoLEM events are held.

CONCLUSIONS

The LoLEM has appeal across stakeholder groups and can be applied flexibly in a range of mental health-related settings. Implementation and evaluation are required to better understand the positive and negative impacts on Books and Readers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42022312789.

The role of people with intellectual disability in intellectual disability research: A systematic review of Delphi studies

BACKGROUND

The way intellectual disability research is designed warrants critical examination, as the knowledge produced through these approaches informs evidence-based practices. People with lived experience should be considered experts in relation to understanding their bodies, conditions, and treatment.

METHOD

This systematic review analyses the design of Delphi studies, to determine the extent to which people with intellectual disability are involved as experts. The design of Delphi studies (involving structured feedback from experts) provides an insight into the extent that 'lived experience' is valued as a source of expert knowledge.

RESULTS

Fifty-five publications reporting on forty-nine separate Delphi studies met our inclusion criteria. Nine publications report the involvement of people with intellectual disability. However, family/informal caregivers are represented as experts in higher numbers and their voices carry greater weight.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review include guidance for practitioners and researchers to facilitate greater participatory roles of people with intellectual disability.

"Nothing's changed, baby": How the mental health narratives of people with multiple and complex needs disrupt the recovery framework

The dominant narrative in mental health policy and practice has shifted in the 21st century from one of chronic ill health to a 'recovery' orientation. Knowledge of recovery is based on narratives of people with lived experience of mental distress. However the narratives of people experiencing structural inequalities are under-represented in recovery research. Meanwhile, uses of recovery narratives have been critiqued by survivor-researchers as a co-option of lived experience to serve neoliberal agendas. To address these twin concerns, we undertook a performative narrative analysis of two 'recovery narratives' of people with multiple and complex needs, analysing their co-construction at immediate/micro and structural/macro levels. We found two contrasting responses to the invitation to tell a recovery story: a narrative of personal lack and a narrative of resistance. We demonstrate through reflexive worked examples how the genre of recovery narrative, focused on personal transformation, may function to occlude structural causes of mental distress and reinforce personal responsibility in the face of unchanging living conditions. We conclude that unacknowledged epistemological assumptions may contribute to co-constructing individualist accounts of recovery. A critical, reflexive approach, together with transparent researcher positionality, is imperative to avoid the epistemic injustice of a decontextualised form of recovery narrative.

Designing a library of lived experience for mental health (LoLEM): protocol for integrating a realist synthesis and experience based codesign approach

INTRODUCTION

People with lived expertise in managing mental health challenges can be an important source of knowledge and support for other people facing similar challenges, and for carers to learn how best to help. However, opportunities for sharing lived expertise are limited. Living libraries support people with lived expertise to be 'living books', sharing their experiences in dialogue with 'readers' who can ask questions. Living libraries have been piloted worldwide in health-related contexts but without a clear model of how they work or rigorous evaluation of their impacts. We aim to develop a programme theory about how a living library could be used to improve mental health outcomes, using this theory to codesign an implementation guide that can be evaluated across different contexts.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a novel integration of realist synthesis and experience-based codesign (EBCD) to produce a programme theory about how living libraries work and a theory and experience informed guide to establishing a library of lived experience for mental health (LoLEM). Two workstreams will run concurrently: (1) a realist synthesis of literature on living libraries, combined with stakeholder interviews, will produce several programme theories; theories will be developed collaboratively with an expert advisory group of stakeholders who have hosted or taken part in a living library and will form our initial analysis framework; a systematic search will identify literature about living libraries; data will be coded into our analysis framework, and we will use retroductive reasoning to explain living libraries' impacts across multiple contexts. Individual stakeholder interviews will help refine and test theories; (2) data from workstream 1 will inform 10 EBCD workshops with people with experience of managing mental health difficulties and health professionals to produce a LoLEM implementation guide; data from this process will also inform the theory in workstream 1.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by Coventry and Warwick National Health Service Research Ethics Committee on 29 December 2021 (reference number 305975). The programme theory and implementation guide will be published as open access and shared widely through a knowledge exchange event, a study website, mental health provider and peer support networks, peer reviewed journals and a funders report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION DETAILS

CRD42022312789.

Assessing diversity and inclusivity is the next frontier in mental health recovery narrative research and practice (Preprint)

Demand for digital health interventions is increasing in many countries. The use of recorded mental health recovery narratives in digital health interventions is becoming more widespread in clinical practice. Mental health recovery narratives are first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems, including struggles and successes over time. Helpful impacts of recorded mental health recovery narratives include connectedness with the narrative and validation of experiences. Possible harms include feeling disconnected and excluded from others. Diverse narrative collections from many types of narrators and describing multiple ways to recover are important to maximize the opportunity for service users to benefit through connection and to minimize the likelihood of harm. Mental health clinicians need to know whether narrative collections are sufficiently diverse to recommend to service users. However, no method exists for assessing the diversity and inclusivity of existing or new narrative collections. We argue that assessing diversity and inclusivity is the next frontier in mental health recovery narrative research and practice. This is important, but methodologically and ethically complex. In this viewpoint, we propose and evaluate one diversity and two inclusivity assessment methods. The diversity assessment method involves use of the Simpson Diversity Index. The two inclusivity assessment methods are based on comparator demographic rates and arbitrary thresholds, respectively. These methods were applied to four narrative collections as a case study. Refinements are needed regarding a narrative assessment tool in terms of its practicality and cultural adaptation.

'Maybe I Shouldn't Talk': The Role of Power in the Telling of Mental Health Recovery Stories

Mental health 'recovery narratives' are increasingly used within teaching, learning and practice environments. The mainstreaming of their use has been critiqued by scholars and activists as a co-option of lived experience for organisational purposes. But how people report their experiences of telling their stories has not been investigated at scale. We present accounts from 71 people with lived experience of multiple inequalities of telling their stories in formal and informal settings. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted within a critical constructivist approach. Our overarching finding was that questions of power were central to all accounts. Four themes were identified: (1) Challenging the status quo; (2) Risky consequences; (3) Producing 'acceptable' stories; (4) Untellable stories. We discuss how the concept of narrative power foregrounds inequalities in settings within which recovery stories are invited and co-constructed, and conclude that power imbalances complicate the seemingly benign act of telling stories of lived experience.

Development and delivery cost of digital health technologies for mental health: Application to the Narrative Experiences Online Intervention

BACKGROUND

The increasing development and use of digital health interventions requires good quality costing information to inform development and commissioning choices about resource allocation decisions. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a web-application that delivers recorded mental health recovery narratives to its users. Two randomized controlled trials are testing the NEON Intervention in people with experience of psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O).

AIM

This study describes and estimates the cost components and total cost of developing and delivering the NEON Intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total costs for the NEON Trial (739 participants) and NEON-O Trial (1,024 participants) were estimated by: identifying resource use categories involved in intervention development and delivery; accurate measurement or estimation of resource use; and a valuation of resource use to generate overall costs, using relevant unit costs. Resource use categories were identified through consultation with literature, costing reporting standards and iterative consultation with health researchers involved in NEON Intervention development and delivery. Sensitivity analysis was used to test assumptions made.

RESULTS

The total cost of developing the NEON Intervention was £182,851. The largest cost components were software development (27%); Lived Experience Advisory Panel workshops (23%); coding the narratives (9%); and researchers' time to source narratives (9%). The total cost of NEON Intervention delivery during the NEON Trial was £118,663 (£349 per NEON Intervention user). In the NEON-O Trial, the total delivery cost of the NEON Intervention was £123,444 (£241 per NEON Intervention user). The largest cost components include updating the narrative collection (50%); advertising (19%); administration (14%); and software maintenance (11%). Uncertainty in the cost of administration had the largest effect on delivery cost estimates.

CONCLUSION

Our work shows that developing and delivering a digital health intervention requires expertise and time commitment from a range of personnel. Teams developing digital narrative interventions need to allocate substantial resources to curating narrative collections.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study identifies the development and delivery resource use categories of a digital health intervention to promote the consistent reporting of costs and informs future decision-making about the costs of delivering the NEON Intervention at scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered 13 August 2018, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11152837. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered 9 January 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63197153.