Stigma of mental health conditions hinders recovery and well-being. The Honest, Open, Proud (HOP) program shows promise in reducing stigma but there is uncertainty about the feasibility of a randomized trial to evaluate a peer-delivered, individual adaptation of HOP for psychosis (Let's Talk).

A multi-site, Prospective Randomized Open Blinded Evaluation (PROBE) design, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the peer-delivered intervention (Let's Talk) to treatment as usual (TAU). Follow-up was 2.5 and 6 months. Randomization was via a web-based system, with permuted blocks of random size. Up to 10 sessions of the intervention over 10 weeks were offered. The primary outcome was feasibility data (recruitment, retention, intervention attendance). Primary outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported by as treated status. The study was prospectively registered: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17197043.

149 patients were referred to the study and 70 were recruited. 35 were randomly assigned to intervention + TAU and 35 to TAU. Recruitment was 93% of the target sample size. Retention rate was high (81% at 2.5 months primary endpoint), and intervention attendance rate was high (83%). 21% of 33 patients in Let's talk + TAU had an adverse event and 16% of 37 patients in TAU. One serious adverse event (pre-randomization) was partially related and expected.

This is the first trial to show that it is feasible and safe to conduct a RCT of HOP adapted for people with psychosis and individual delivery. An adequately powered trial is required to provide robust evidence.

The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) provides evidence support and advice to the National Health Service in Scotland on the use of new and existing health technologies, which, although not medicines, are likely to have significant implications for people's care. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the developments that have taken place in the SHTG's patient involvement processes in the years 2017 to 2019, focusing primarily on specific engagement with patient organizations and considering how the new approaches have been received by stakeholders.

Feedback from patient organizations that participated in the SHTG submission process, alongside SHTG committee members’ views on patient organizations contributions, was gathered primarily via online questionnaires. The number of times that patient organizations were invited and accepted the opportunity to peer-review SHTG advice statements prior to and after the employment of a Public Involvement Advisor (PIA) was analyzed.

Completed questionnaires (n = 4) from three case study examples showed high patient organization satisfaction with their experience of the SHTG process. The feedback from SHTG committee members that was gathered indicated that patient organization participation was generally well received. The number of peer reviews from patient organizations for SHTG advice statements in 2018–2019 doubled to 86 percent of the total advice statements (n = 22), compared with 43 percent (n = 14) in 2016–2017.

Significant progress has been made toward improving the SHTG's patient involvement processes. A dedicated PIA post within the SHTG has allowed for a more tailored support to patient organizations and has encouraged their increased participation in SHTG processes.