After the rapid implementation of digital health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, a paucity of research exists about the suitability of remote consulting in people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, particularly for neuropsychiatric reviews.

This study examines when remote neuropsychiatric routine consulting is suitable for this population.

A survey was conducted of people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, examining their preference between face-to-face and video consultations for ongoing neuropsychiatric reviews within a rural countywide intellectual disability service in Cornwall, England (population: 538 000). The survey was sent to all adults with intellectual disabilities open to the service on 30 July 2022, closing on 30 September 2022. Participants were asked to provide responses on 11 items predesigned and co-produced between clinicians and experts by experience. The entire service caseload of people had White ethnicity, reflecting the ethnic demographics of Cornwall. Responses received without consent were excluded from the study dataset.

Of 271 eligible participants, 119 responses were received, 104 of whom consented to having their anonymised data used for research analysis. There were no significant differences between preferences and age and gender variables. There was no statistically significant difference regarding preference for the reintroduction of face-to-face appointments (52.0%) compared with video consultations (48.0%). Travel distance (>10 miles) to the clinical setting was important but did not outweigh benefits for those preferring a face-to-face appointment.

This study offers insights into the factors that influence preferences about what type of neuropsychiatric appointment is most suitable for people with intellectual disabilities.

Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse.

This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release.

The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3–5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT).

In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI –1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact.

Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.