Qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators highlights the program's promise and areas for improvement.
Background Bipolar disorder often goes unrecognised for several years, leading to delayed treatment and negative outcomes. To help address this, we have developed a novel telehealth-based group psychoeducational and resilience enhancement programme for individuals at high risk for bipolar disorder (PREP-BD), aimed at improving help-seeking among adolescents and young adults at risk of developing bipolar disorder. Aims The purpose of the current study was to explore the perspectives of at-risk youth, their families and group facilitators who participated in the feasibility trial of PREP-BD. Method Group and individual semi-structured feedback sessions were conducted with the participants ( n = 21) of the programme, their family members and the facilitators of PREP-BD. The questions covered their experiences, opinions on the programme’s structure and content and suggestions for improvement. Feedback sessions were transcribed and analysed qualitatively using inductive content analysis. Results Overall feedback was positive, with participants and facilitators appreciating the informative and engaging nature of the sessions. Some participants desired more actionable resources and complex content. Family members sought greater involvement and information about the programme. The online format was valued for convenience, but was also viewed as a barrier by some to fostering deeper connections. Conclusions PREP-BD shows promise as a psychoeducational intervention for individuals at high risk for bipolar disorder. To enhance the programme’s effectiveness, future iterations should incorporate more nuanced content, provide additional practical guidance and address the limitations of the virtual setting. Continued evaluation and optimisation are crucial for ensuring the programme’s effectiveness as a tool for early intervention in bipolar disorder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nejad et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: