Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services improve outcomes for young people, but approximately 30% disengage.

To test whether a new motivational engagement intervention would prolong engagement and whether it was cost-effective.

We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 20 EIP teams at five UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Teams were randomised using permuted blocks stratified by NHS trust. Participants were all young people (aged 14–35 years) presenting with a first episode of psychosis between May 2019 and July 2020 (N = 1027). We compared the novel Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention plus standardised EIP (sEIP) with sEIP alone. The primary outcome was time to disengagement over 12–26 months. Economic outcomes were mental health costs, societal costs and socio-occupational outcomes over 12 months. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation for primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered at ISRCTN51629746.

Disengagement was low at 15.9% overall in standardised stand-alone services. The adjusted hazard ratio for EYE-2 + sEIP (n = 652) versus sEIP alone (n = 375) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.76–1.49; P = 0.713). The health economic evaluation indicated lower mental healthcare costs linked to reductions in unplanned mental healthcare with no compromise of clinical outcomes, as well as some evidence for lower societal costs and more days in education, training, employment and stable accommodation in the EYE-2 group.

We found no evidence that EYE-2 increased time to disengagement, but there was some evidence for its cost-effectiveness. This is the largest study to date reporting positive engagement, health and cost outcomes in a total EIP population sample. Limitations included high loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and low completion of societal and socio-occupational data. COVID-19 affected fidelity and implementation. Future engagement research should target engagement to those in greatest need, including in-patients and those with socio-occupational goals.

To assess physical health needs of adolescent in-patients by routine monitoring. A retrospective analysis of case notes was conducted on a 6-month intake to generic and secure adolescent mental health units in Greater Manchester, UK.

Fifty individuals were admitted (52% female, average age 15.84 years). Diagnoses varied and 66% were prescribed medications before admission. All had a physical health assessment, which identified various physical health risk factors. Average body mass index was 25.99 (range 15.8–44), and increased during in-patient treatment for 84% of individuals who had their body mass recorded more than once. A total of 28% of individuals smoked. Lipids and prolactin levels were elevated across the sample.

This evaluation strengthens the argument to optimise physical healthcare for adolescent in-patients and develop physical health interventions, particularly given that we observed elevated lipids and prolactin. Physical health and well-being may not be prioritised when assessing and managing young peoples' mental health, despite their increased vulnerability for comorbid conditions.

Research has highlighted the importance of recovery as defined by the service user, and suggests a link to negative emotion, although little is known about the role of negative emotion in predicting subjective recovery.

To investigate longitudinal predictors of variability in recovery scores with a focus on the role of negative emotion.

Participants (n=110) with experience of psychosis completed measures of psychiatric symptoms, social functioning, subjective recovery, depression, hopelessness and self-esteem at baseline and 6 months later. Path analysis was used to examine predictive factors for recovery and negative emotion.

Subjective recovery scores were predicted by negative emotion, positive self-esteem and hopelessness, and to a lesser extent by symptoms and functioning. Current recovery score was not predicted by past recovery score after accounting for past symptoms, current hopelessness and current positive self-esteem.

Psychosocial factors and negative emotion appear to be the strongest longitudinal predictors of variation in subjective recovery, rather than psychiatric symptoms.

Despite evidence for the effectiveness of structured psychological therapies for bipolar disorder no psychological interventions have been specifically designed to enhance personal recovery for individuals with recent-onset bipolar disorder.

A pilot study to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a new intervention, recovery-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), designed in collaboration with individuals with recent-onset bipolar disorder intended to improve clinical and personal recovery outcomes.

A single, blind randomised controlled trial compared treatment as usual (TAU) with recovery-focused CBT plus TAU (n = 67).

Recruitment and follow-up rates within 10% of pre-planned targets to 12-month follow-up were achieved. An average of 14.15 h (s.d. = 4.21) of recovery-focused CBT were attended out of a potential maximum of 18 h. Compared with TAU, recovery-focused CBT significantly improved personal recovery up to 12-month follow-up (Bipolar Recovery Questionnaire mean score 310.87, 95% CI 75.00–546.74 (s.e. = 120.34), P = 0.010, d=0.62) and increased time to any mood relapse during up to 15 months follow-up (χ2 = 7.64, P<0.006, estimated hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.78). Groups did not differ with respect to medication adherence.

Recovery-focused CBT seems promising with respect to feasibility and potential clinical effectiveness. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness now need to be reliably estimated in a definitive trial.