BackgroundA higher proportion of African-Caribbean people in the UK are diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders than other ethnic groups. High levels of shame and stigma at individual and community levels contribute to delayed access to care, potentially increasing the duration of untreated psychosis and so worsening outcomes. Inferior access, more coercive care, and worse outcomes have created a ‘circle of fear’ of mental health services within African-Caribbean communities. This further discourages early engagement with statutory services and increases the burden of care for families living with schizophrenia.Providing tailored and relevant information about psychosis (psychoeducation) has the potential for improving outcomes for patients and families. However, there are no culturally appropriate psychoeducation programmes for African-Caribbeans in the UK. We aim to determine whether an e-learning resource, co-produced with African-Caribbean stakeholders to improve knowledge about psychoses, would be culturally acceptable and accessible to members of this population.MethodsA pilot randomised controlled trial of the feasibility of co-producing and testing a novel e-learning resource to improve knowledge about and attitudes towards schizophrenia in African-Caribbean families. We will seek to recruit 40 participants, aged ≥ 16 years, either to receive the intervention or as controls. They will self-refer or be referred via inpatient and wellbeing services, family and carers’ forums, statutory community mental health teams, and voluntary sector/non-governmental agencies (NGOs). Participants will complete the Ca-KAP, ASMI, and SF-12. Acceptability will be explored qualitatively via focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews.DiscussionThe proposed trial will demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a fully powered RCT to evaluate the efficacy of an e-learning resource about schizophrenia with African-Caribbean families. Qualitative work will explore the intervention’s accessibility and barriers/facilitators to participation, including attitudes to randomisation. These data will facilitate further refinement of the intervention.Trial registrationISRCTN11394005, retrospectively registered 20/03/2018.

ObjectiveEvaluate the quality and readability of United Kingdom‐based websites on anorexia nervosa.MethodFirst‐page search results of three search engines (with search term “anorexia nervosa”) were consulted. Websites were excluded if they were pro‐ana, duplications, advertisements, Wikipedia, nonwritten/video, invalid addresses, non‐English, book links, articles/news pages, and discussion forums. Fifteen websites were evaluated on information quality using DISCERN, and on readability using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Scale. Spearman's correlations between quality and readability were calculated.ResultsDISCERN‐scores ranged from 34 to 71 (M = 49.27, SD = 9.16), representing “fair” information quality. FRE‐scores ranged from 28 to 64 (M = 42.7, SD = 13.43), representing “difficult” readability. The Royal College of Psychiatrists website (https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/) received the only “excellent” quality rating and was the only website that met the recommended reading level. The other websites' quality varied, and their reading levels ranged from fairly to very difficult.ConclusionWebsite quality scores varied. Oftentimes, information about treatment risks and benefits was lacking, and texts were too complex. Website quality seals could prove beneficial, and web developers should use quality and readability measures to ensure information accessibility. Future research should utilize DISCERN and FRE to evaluate quality and readability of websites pertaining to other eating disorders too.Video abstract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9DKS7qISSA&feature=youtu.be

Large variations of inequalities in rates of mental health disorders and access to mental health care exist within and between countries. Globally, disparities range from countries where there is little provision to those where, despite the availability of evidence-based mental health care, service access and outcomes are mediated by social factors such as socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, and culture. This is salient because increasingly diverse populations are inevitably created with globalization. We posit that in multicultural contexts, effective therapeutic engagement requires therapists who are competent and confident to work with diversity and difference, utilizing insights into their own as well as their clients' internal and external worlds. Although there are many reasons why psychotherapies can be insensitive and harmful, for example, the inherent power imbalance in therapeutic relationships, a lack of awareness of cultural and ethnic variation and needs are among them. Acquisition of 'cultural competence' and increasing availability of culturally-adapted interventions should, in theory, enable practitioners to work with a range of individuals with whom they might have little in common. However, whilst cultural adaptation appears promising, there are concerns regarding its viability as a strategy for tackling disparities in access to psychological care. Evidence for cultural competency is patchy at best. We show how and why delivering effective psychotherapy in the twenty-first century requires a paradigm shift from current approaches to truly integrated models, developed in collaboration with recipients of care. Coproducing interventions, training, and means of evaluating them with clients necessitates taking into consideration social contexts, alternative conceptualizations of mental health and disorders and difficulties, and what constitutes appropriate helpful interventions for psychological distress. Practitioner pointsUpskilling therapists to work with diversity and difference is essential for effective delivery of psychological treatments. Increasing the availability of culturally-adapted interventions together with therapists who are sufficiently competent and confident to deliver them should enable practitioners to work with a range of individuals with whom they might have little in common.