Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) that meet the definition of a medical device are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK. The MHRA uses procedures that were originally developed for pharmaceuticals to assess the safety of DMHIs. There is recognition that this may not be ideal, as is evident by an ongoing consultation for reform led by the MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The aim of this study was to generate an experts’ consensus on how the medical regulatory method used for assessing safety could best be adapted for DMHIs.

An online Delphi study containing three rounds was conducted with an international panel of 20 experts with experience/knowledge in the field of UK digital mental health.

Sixty-four items were generated, of which 41 achieved consensus (64%). Consensus emerged around ten recommendations, falling into five main themes: Enhancing the quality of adverse events data in DMHIs; Re-defining serious adverse events for DMHIs; Reassessing short-term symptom deterioration in psychological interventions as a therapeutic risk; Maximising the benefit of the Yellow Card Scheme; and Developing a harmonised approach for assessing the safety of psychological interventions in general.

The implementation of the recommendations provided by this consensus could improve the assessment of safety of DMHIs, making them more effective in detecting and mitigating risk.

Cognitive Bias Modification for paranoia (CBM-pa) is a novel, theory-driven psychological intervention targeting the biased interpretation of emotional ambiguity associated with paranoia. Study objectives were (i) test the intervention's feasibility, (ii) provide effect size estimates, (iii) assess dose–response and (iv) select primary outcomes for future trials.

In a double-blind randomised controlled trial, sixty-three outpatients with clinically significant paranoia were randomised to either CBM-pa or an active control (text reading) between April 2016 and September 2017. Patients received one 40 min session per week for 6 weeks. Assessments were given at baseline, after each interim session, post-treatment, and at 1- and 3-months post-treatment.

A total of 122 patients were screened and 63 were randomised. The recruitment rate was 51.2%, with few dropouts (four out of 63) and follow-up rates were 90.5% (1-month) and 93.7% (3-months). Each session took 30–40 min to complete. There was no statistical evidence of harmful effects of the intervention. Preliminary data were consistent with efficacy of CBM-pa over text-reading control: patients randomised to the intervention, compared to control patients, reported reduced interpretation bias (d = −0.48 to −0.76), improved symptoms of paranoia (d = −0.19 to −0.38), and lower depressed and anxious mood (d = −0.03 to −0.29). The intervention effect was evident after the third session.

CBM-pa is feasible for patients with paranoia. A fully powered randomised control trial is warranted.

A limited case-load size is considered crucial for some forms of intensive case management and many countries have undertaken extensive reorganisation of mental health services to achieve this. However, there has been limited empirical work to explore this specifically.

To test whether there is a discrete threshold for changes in intensive case management practice determined by case-load size.

‘Virtual’ case-load sizes were calculated for patients from their actual contacts over a 2-year period and were compared with the proportions of contacts devoted to medical and non-medical care (as a proxy for a more comprehensive service model).

There were 39 025 recordings for 545 patients over 2 years, with a mean rate of contacts per full-time case manager per month of 48 (range 35–60). There was no variation in the proportion of non-medical contacts when case-load sizes were over 1:20 but there was a convincing linear relationship when sizes were between 1:10 and 1:20.

Case-load size between 1:10 and 1:20 does affect the practice of case management. However, there is no support for a paradigm shift in practice at a discrete level.