Cited by 32Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health and Patient InvolvementMental Health Treatment and Access

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

Open access
Slade, Mike, Rennick‐Egglestone, Stefan, Elliott, Rachel A., Newby, Chris, Robinson, Clare, Gavan, Sean P., Paterson, Luke, Ali, Yasmin +25 more·2024·World Psychiatry

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.21176

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35: 1095- 108.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slade, M., Rennick‐Egglestone, S., Elliott, R. A., Newby, C., Robinson, C., Gavan, S. P., Paterson, L., Ali, Y., Yeo, C., Glover, T., Pollock, K., Callard, F., Priebe, S., Thornicroft, G., Repper, J., Keppens, J., Smuk, M., Franklin, D., Walcott, R., Harrison, J., Smith, R., Robotham, D., Bradstreet, S., Gillard, S., Cuijpers, P., Farkas, M., Zeev, D. B., Davidson, L., Kotera, Y., Roe, J., Ng, F., Llewellyn‐Beardsley, J., & the NEON study group
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • DRT Software Nottingham UK
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • ImROC Nottingham UK
  • NEON Lived Experience Advisory Panel Nottingham UK
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • McPin Foundation (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
  • Boston University (US)
  • School of Medicine University of Washington Seattle WA USA
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-12
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
101-112
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
OpenAlex
W4390794651
Cited by
32
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11
FWCI
12.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0615-20016, NIHR203310)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • King's College London
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S001255/1)
  • NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203310, RP-PG-0615-20016)
  • National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South London
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
recovery narratives, mental health recovery, online intervention, self-guided intervention, recommender systems, mood and anxiety disorders, quality of life, psychological distress, hope, self-efficacy, meaning in life, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, Meaning in Life Questionnaire

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review