Many individuals with first-episode psychosis experience severe and persistent social disability despite receiving specialist early intervention. The SUPEREDEN3 trial assessed whether augmenting early intervention in psychosis services with Social Recovery Therapy (SRT) would lead to better social recovery.

A qualitative process evaluation was conducted to explore implementation and mechanisms of SRT impact from the perspective of SUPEREDEN3 participants.

A subsample of SUPEREDEN3 trial participants (n = 19) took part in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Trial participants were early intervention service users aged 16–35 years with severe and persistent social disability. Both SRT plus early intervention and early intervention alone arm participants were interviewed to facilitate better understanding of the context in which SRT was delivered and to aid identification of mechanisms specific to SRT.

The six themes identified were used to generate an explanatory model of SRT’s enhancement of social recovery. Participant experiences highlight the importance of the therapist cultivating increased self-understanding and assertively encouraging clients to face feared situations in a way that is perceived as supportive, while managing ongoing symptoms. The sense of achievement generated by reaching targets linked to personally meaningful goals promotes increased self-agency, and generates hope and optimism.

The findings suggest potentially important processes through which social recovery was enhanced in this trial, which will be valuable in ensuring the benefits observed can be replicated. Participant accounts provide hope that, with the right support, even clients who have persistent symptoms and the most severe disability can make a good social recovery.

Recent research has investigated the use of serious games as a form of therapeutic intervention for depression and anxiety in young people.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis into the effectiveness of gaming interventions for treating either depression or anxiety in individuals aged 12–25 years.

An electronic search was conducted on the 30 March 2020, using PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, Medline and EMBASE databases. Standardised effect sizes (Hedge's g) were calculated for between-participant comparisons between experimental (therapeutic intervention) and control conditions, and within-participant comparisons between pre- and post-intervention time points for repeated measures designs.

Twelve studies (seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-randomised studies) were included. For RCTs, there was a statistically significant and robust effect (g = −0.54, 95% CI −1.00 to −0.08) favouring the therapeutic intervention when treating youth depression. For non-RCTs, using a repeated measures design, the overall effect was also strong (g = −0.75, 95% CI −1.64 to 0.14) favouring therapeutic intervention, but this was not statistically significant. Interestingly, we found no statistically significant effect for treating youth anxiety.

There is preliminary evidence to suggest that gaming interventions are an effective treatment for youth depression, but not anxiety. Further research is warranted to establish the utility, acceptability and effectiveness of gaming interventions in treating mental health problems in young people.

Early intervention services (EIS) comprise low-stigma, youth-friendly mental health teams for young people undergoing first-episode psychosis (FEP). Engaging with the family of the young person is central to EIS policy and practice.

By analysing carers' accounts of their daily lives and affective challenges during a relative's FEP against the background of wider research into EIS, this paper explores relationships between carers' experiences and EIS.

Semi-structured longitudinal interviews with 80 carers of young people with FEP treated through English EIS.

Our data suggest that EIS successfully aid carers to support their relatives, particularly through the provision of knowledge about psychosis and medications. However, paradoxical ramifications of these user-focused engagements also emerge; they risk leaving carers' emotions unacknowledged and compounding an existing lack of help-seeking.

By focusing on EIS's engagements with carers, this paper draws attention to an urgent broader question: as a continuing emphasis on care outside the clinic space places family members at the heart of the care of those with severe mental illness, we ask: who can, and should, support carers, and in what ways?