Despite its significance, ensuring continuity of care demands substantial resources, which might not be readily accessible in many public healthcare systems. Studies indicate that continuity of care remains uncertain in numerous healthcare systems.

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a continuity-of-care model for patients with severe mental illness (SMI), providing seamless treatment from discharge from a closed ward to subsequent psychiatric, psychological and rehabilitation services.

Data from patients discharged before (1 January to 31 December 2018) and after (1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022) full implementation of the model were analysed and compared in terms of average duration of hospital stay, emergency department visits within 90 days of discharge, readmission rate within a year post-discharge and initiation of rehabilitation process.

In the post-implementation period (n = 482), the average admission time significantly decreased from 30.51 ± 29.72 to 26.77 ± 27.89 days, compared with the pre-implementation period (n = 403) (P = 0.029). Emergency department visits within 90 days following discharge decreased from 38.70 to 26.35% of discharged patients (P < 0.001). The rate of readmission decreased from 50.9 to 44.0% (P = 0.041) for one readmission and from 28.3 to 22.0% (P = 0.032) for two readmissions in the year following discharge. Additionally, the proportion of patients entering formal rehabilitation increased from 7.94 to 12.03% (P = 0.044).

This study highlights the effectiveness of a continuity-of-care model spearheaded by senior psychiatrists and involving paramedical personnel. These findings underscore the significant potential of the model to substantially enhance mental health services and outcomes. Moreover, they emphasise its relevance for patients, clinicians and policy makers.

There are increasing calls for neurodivergent peoples’ involvement in research into neurodevelopmental conditions. So far, however, this has tended to be achieved only through membership of external patient and public involvement (PPI) panels. The Regulating Emotions – Strengthening Adolescent Resilience (RE-STAR) programme is building a new participatory model of translational research that places young people with diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism at the heart of the research team so that they can contribute to shaping and delivering its research plan.

To outline the principles on which the RE-STAR participatory model is based and describe its practical implementation and benefits, especially concerning the central role of members of the Youth Researcher Panel (Y-RPers).

The model presented is a culmination of a 24-month process during which Y-RPers moved from advisors to co-researchers integrated within RE-STAR. It is shaped by the principles of co-intentionality. The account here was agreed following multiple iterative cycles of collaborative discussion between academic researchers, Y-RPers and other stakeholders.

Based on our collective reflections we offer general guidance on how to effectively integrate young people with diagnoses of ADHD and/or autism into the core of the translational research process. We also describe the specific theoretical, methodological and analytical benefits of Y-RPer involvement in RE-STAR.

Although in its infancy, RE-STAR has demonstrated the model's potential to enrich translational science in a way that can change our understanding of the relationship between autism, ADHD and mental health. When appropriately adapted we believe the model can be applied to other types of neurodivergence and/or mental health conditions.

Anxiety in pregnancy and after giving birth (the perinatal period) is highly prevalent but under-recognised. Robust methods of assessing perinatal anxiety are essential for services to identify and treat women appropriately.

To determine which assessment measures are most psychometrically robust and effective at identifying women with perinatal anxiety (primary objective) and depression (secondary objective).

We conducted a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2243 women who completed five measures of anxiety and depression (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) two- and seven-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS)) during pregnancy (15 weeks, 22 weeks and 31 weeks) and after birth (6 weeks). To assess diagnostic accuracy a sample of 403 participants completed modules of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI).

The best diagnostic accuracy for anxiety was shown by the CORE-10 and SAAS. The best diagnostic accuracy for depression was shown by the CORE-10, SAAS and Whooley questions, although the SAAS had lower specificity. The same cut-off scores for each measure were optimal for identifying anxiety or depression (SAAS ≥9; CORE-10 ≥9; Whooley ≥1). All measures were psychometrically robust, with good internal consistency, convergent validity and unidimensional factor structure.

This study identified robust and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety and depression. We recommend using the CORE-10 or SAAS to assess perinatal anxiety and the CORE-10 or Whooley questions to assess depression. The GAD-2 and GAD-7 did not perform as well as other measures and optimal cut-offs were lower than currently recommended.