Working collaboratively to Investigate the Socioemotional Drivers Of severe and enduring Mental illness
Funded by UKRI for GBP 315,023 from January 2026 to January 2029Severe and enduring mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, and complex emotional needs, can deeply affect how people think, feel, and relate to others. While research often focuses on biology or medication, much less attention has been given to the emotional and social factors that shape mental health. Experiences like loneliness, emotional distress, and the stress of navigating difficult social environments can play a major role in how people become unwell, what support they receive, and how they recover.
This project, called WISDOM, focuses on understanding these socioemotional drivers of mental illness. I will look at how people’s emotions, relationships, and environments influence the course of SMI and how these insights can improve care and support. This person-centred approach highlights subjective experiences to which we can all relate yet are not considered enough in mental health research.
The project will have three parts: First, I will use cutting-edge language models (like AI tools) in a trusted research environment to search for emotional and social warning signs in anonymised clinical records to help services better detect and respond to distress earlier. Second, I will examine how people’s local environment like social isolation or access to cultural spaces affects outcomes for those with SMI which can guide planning and interventions. Third, I will explore whether collecting real-time information on how people feel and who they connect with during daily life can help predict or prevent mental health crises.
People with lived experience of mental illness will guide and co-lead the project throughout, ensuring the research stays grounded in real-life priorities. Together, we will develop new knowledge, tools, and public resources that improve mental health services, reduce stigma, and support more compassionate care.Using a National, Interdisciplinary Team to Enhance Drug and alcohol treatment data
Funded by National Institute for Social Care and Health Research for GBP 98,937 from January 2026 to December 2026In the past year, over 300,000 adults in England received help for drug and alcohol problems. The system that tracks their treatment isn’t working as well as it could. This means treatment services might not know how or when to provide the right support at the right time to people with drug and alcohol problems.
What’s the problem? All of England’s drug and alcohol treatment services use the same data system to understand who needs help and whether treatments work. This system collects information/data about everyone receiving support (or treatment).
But the current treatment data system has serious problems: • Staff find it difficult and time-consuming to use, taking time away from patient care • Researchers and services can’t easily access data • The system doesn’t capture what matters most to people in recovery Better data could help services improve care and treatment outcomes for people with drug and alcohol problems.
What are we doing? Our team will find ways to improve how drug and alcohol treatment data are collected and used. We will do this by: Working with people who matter most: Our approach puts people with lived experience at the core. We’re partnering with people currently using or who have used drug and alcohol services. They will help us understand what information matters to them and their concerns about data collection. We’re also interviewing staff who collect data and people who make decisions with it. Learning from success: We will look at research about the current system’s strengths and weaknesses and what works well in other countries. Creating solutions together: People who use drugs and alcohol, staff, and researchers will find ways to improve the data system in national workshops.
Why is this important? For people using services: Better data systems mean services can respond faster to individual needs, track recovery progress more meaningfully, and provide more personalised support. For services and staff: Simpler systems that work better free up time for patient care and provide better information to improve treatments. For public health: Improved monitoring could show changes in drug and alcohol use trends earlier, leading to better and quicker care. For the future: This project will find changes needed to the data system and develop larger funding applications to introduce them. We’re working with the organisation that runs the system to ensure our recommendations are introduced.
How are we involving people with lived experience? People who use or have used drug and alcohol services are partners in this research. Two national treatment providers are helping us recruit advisors who will: • Shape what questions we ask • Review all project materials • Help interpret findings • Co-create recommendations We are making participation inclusive. We will hold flexible meetings that work around people’s lives and recovery needs.
Team and timeline We are a team of researchers, data experts, and people with experience of drug and alcohol services from across England. Over 12 months, our research will produce recommendations for improvements and longer-term change. This work is the first step toward an improved data system that supports better drug and alcohol treatment across England.Embedding the Public Engagement in Data Research Initiative Good Practice Standards in Data for Research and Statistics - CRIS
Funded by Health Data Research UK for GBP 13,732 from November 2025 to October 2026The Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) is a collaborative initiative between North London NHS Foundation Trust (NLFT) and University College London (UCL) that enables ethically governed research using de-identified electronic health record data from secondary mental healthcare services. Originally developed at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, CRIS was extended to Camden and Islington Foundation Trust (C&I), forming a new database in 2013. Since then, the C&I implementation has established a robust model of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE). PPIE members co-chair the CRIS Oversight Committee, independently review research applications, and hold formal authority in recommending approval or rejection of proposals. This structure ensures that research conducted using CRIS data is ethically sound, relevant to service users, and aligned with lived experience. In Autumn 2024, C&I merged with Barnet, Enfield and Haringey (BEH) NHS Trust to form a single, unified North London mental health provider (NLFT). In January 2025, we received NHS ethical approval to expand the CRIS platform across the new Trust. From September 2025, we will have the technical capability to interrogate anonymised clinical records from all five boroughs, significantly enhancing the volume, diversity, and representativeness of the CRIS dataset. This expansion presents a valuable opportunity to strengthen our commitment to inclusive research by further embedding PPIE good practice standards across the newly merged Trust. While core funding from the North London Service User Research Forum supports current PPIE activity, PEDRI funding will allow us to recruit, train, and integrate a broader and more diverse group of PPIE members from BEH, while developing co-produced onboarding resources, expanding representation, and further establishing long-term equity into CRIS governance.
The acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Patient Observation in reducing the risk of self-harm and suicide on psychiatric wards
Funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research for GBP 1,519,760 from December 2024 to November 2027Research questions Is Enhanced Patient Observation (EPO) acceptable to psychiatric inpatients and ward staff? Is it used differentially for specific patient groups? Is EPO effective and cost-effective in reducing risk of self-harm (SH) and suicide during psychiatric admission? Could EPO be improved? Background EPO of patients by staff is used widely on psychiatric inpatient wards in England, consuming significant resources. Although recommended in NICE guidelines there is no good evidence it reduces the risk of suicide and SH. Qualitative evidence and our patient/staff consultation shows that patients can find it intrusive, coercive and unsettling. Newer methods of analysing observational data can overcome the cost and time implications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and have equivalent validity to RCT findings, yet have not been applied to this context. Aims and objectives Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EPO for suicide and SH, establish its acceptability and explore suggestions for change. Our objectives are: to collect quantitative (cost/activity) data on the practice of EPO on general adult psychiatric wards in England, and qualitative data on its acceptability to patients, carers and ward staff; to analyse routine clinical data to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EPO in reducing suicide/SH; to bring this evidence together to co-produce staff training, patient information, revisions to clinical guidelines, and policy advice to improve the safety and experiences of staff and inpatients. Methods We will collect EPO cost/practice data for all general adult NHS psychiatric units in England, for use in our CEA. We will conduct individual qualitative interviews with current inpatients and clinical staff nationally with experience of EPO to explore their experiences and potential suggestions for change. Using electronic health records (EHRs) for two mental health trusts, we will develop an algorithm that can identify patients on EPO (and indication) for each bed day and describe their characteristics. We will test whether neurodivergent patients and those from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be placed on EPO. Using a target trial emulation approach we will analyse EHR data in two trusts to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EPO in reducing risk of SH and suicide on psychiatric wards. Bringing all this evidence together in a set of separate workshops for inpatients and ward staff, we will start a process of co-creating training, patient information, and policy briefings, and suggesting revisions to local/national clinical guidelines to improve EPO’s therapeutic value. Timelines for delivery In Y1 and Y2 we will collect and analyse national cost/activity/qualitative data and create our algorithm. In Y2 and Y3 we will model target trial emulation. In Y3 workshops we will discuss findings to create staff training, patient information, policy briefings, and suggested revisions to clinical guidelines, using diverse methods of dissemination to reach all stakeholders. Anticipated impact and dissemination Our close working with clinical leaders and commissioners will ensure that the staff training package we create will be integrated into existing training infrastructures. This, and our wider dissemination of findings, will ensure that the evidence we create will translate rapidly into benefits to patients, staff and all stakeholders.
Why is the research important? Suicide prevention is an important national public health priority. In 2019 the National Health Service made a plan to focus on reducing self-harm and suicide among people staying in psychiatric hospitals. However, there is currently little evidence to show whether what is done to help these patients is effective or worth the money. What are we interested in? One-to-one nursing (also called Enhanced Patient Observation) is commonly used in psychiatric hospitals. It aims to help patients feel safe and to stop them from hurting themselves but we don’t know if it actually works. Some patients can find it threatening or invasive. With our lived experience experts, we are proposing to carry out research in five stages to learn more about it. How are we planning to do this research? In stage 1, we will ask all the NHS mental health organisations in England about how they use Enhanced Patient Observation and how much it costs. We want to know what they’re doing well and if there are any good ideas we can share. In stage 2, we will talk to current inpatients and ward staff with experience of Enhanced Patient Observation. Our lived experience researchers will interview them to ask them what they think about it and if they can suggest any ways to make it better. This will help patients feel comfortable sharing their experiences. In stage 3, we will use anonymised electronic patient records to look at the different kinds of patients who have…
Health-related Outcomes, alternative Provision, and Exclusion among pupils with neurodivergent Special Educational Needs (HOPE-SEN)
Funded by Economic and Social Research Council for GBP 148,211 from September 2024 to March 2026Special educational needs (SEN) refer to learning difficulties or disabilities which can make it harder for a child or young person to learn compared with other pupils of the same age. Types of SEN can vary widely, including difficulties with communication and interaction, cognitive and learning difficulty, and other social, emotional, and mental health problems. Some of these SEN can be considered in terms of neurodiversity or neurodivergence which describe a person whose brain functions, ways of processing information, and/or behaviours are considered atypical.
Pupils with neurodivergent SEN may receive support from school and/or local authorities yet health and educational outcomes are often worse for these pupils nevertheless. For example, pupils with neurodivergent SEN are more likely to have medically-related absences from school, engage in self-harm, and die by suicide. As well, pupils with neurodivergent SEN are more often subject to formal school exclusion and attend alternative provision. These adverse experiences and outcomes in childhood and adolescence can lead to lifelong disparities in employment, socioeconomic status, and well-being.
Identifying and understanding which risk factors are associated with adverse outcomes can be an important step in designing targeted interventions to support pupils with neurodivergent SEN to succeed in school and in life. For instance, school-based SEN support for neurodivergence can be a crucial factor but not enough is known about how differential SEN support might be causally related to specific outcomes for distinct types of neurodivergent SEN. SEN provision is meant to account for individual needs but can be very heterogeneous in practice. As well, evidence about disparities in who receives support from local authorities through Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) and how EHCPs may be linked to long-term outcomes can help guide policymaking to improve EHCP provision.
This fellowship proposal aims to apply descriptive epidemiology, data science, and causal inference in three work packages to explore these questions using observational data from The Education and Child Insights from Linked Data (ECHILD) database. Descriptive epidemiological approaches will be used in two work packages to explore relationships between educational and health risk factors and outcomes among secondary school pupils with neurodivergent SEN, including building on existing work examining empirical phenotypes of neurodivergent SEN. These work packages will make use of advanced statistical models which will account for hierarchical, longitudinal, and time-varying data. A third work package will investigate the feasibility of applying causal inference approaches in ECHILD with a proposed target trial emulation. Cutting across these work packages are commitments to advanced data science, meaningful public engagement, and open science and innovative dissemination.