Does evidence-based medicine apply to psychiatry?

Evidence, ethics and the promise of artificial intelligence in psychiatry

Researchers are studying how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to better detect, prognosticate and subgroup diseases. The idea that AI might advance medicine's understanding of biological categories of psychiatric disorders, as well as provide better treatments, is appealing given the historical challenges with prediction, diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry. Given the power of AI to analyse vast amounts of information, some clinicians may feel obligated to align their clinical judgements with the outputs of the AI system. However, a potential epistemic privileging of AI in clinical judgements may lead to unintended consequences that could negatively affect patient treatment, well-being and rights. The implications are also relevant to precision medicine, digital twin technologies and predictive analytics generally. We propose that a commitment to epistemic humility can help promote judicious clinical decision-making at the interface of big data and AI in psychiatry.

Critical reflections on the concept and impact of "scaling up" in Global Mental Health

The field of Global Mental Health (GMH) aims to address the global burden of mental illness by focusing on closing the "treatment gap" faced by many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To increase access to services, GMH prioritizes "scaling up" mental health services, primarily advocating for the export of Western centred and developed biomedical and psychosocial "evidence-based" approaches to the Global South. While this emphasis on scalability has resulted in the increased availability of mental health services in some LMICs, there have been few critical discussions of this strategy. This commentary critically appraises the scalability of GMH by questioning the validity and sustainability of its approach. We argue that the current approach emphasizes the development of mental health services and interventions in "silos," focusing on the treatment of mental illnesses at the exclusion of a holistic and contextualized approach to people's needs. We also question the opportunities that the current approach to GMH offers for the growth of mental health programmes of local NGOs and investigate the potential pitfalls that scalability may have on NGOs' impact and ability to innovate. This commentary argues that any "scaling up" of mental health services must place sustainability at the core of its mission by favouring the growth and development of local solutions and wider forms of support that prioritize social inclusion and long-lasting mental health recovery.

Clinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry: examples from the published literature

There has been growing interest in the past century in improving understanding of the development and treatment of psychopathology of children, with increasing government funding of research in the past two decades. However, child and adolescent psychiatry excellence in clinical care has not been well-documented in the existing literature. This article provides examples of clinical excellence in paediatric mental health to supplement existing guidelines for the clinical practice of paediatric psychiatry. A review of the literature identified 204 unique peer-reviewed articles that were then further evaluated for applicability and relevance to the definition of clinical excellence as outlined by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE). Cases were then identified and selected for each domain of clinical excellence as they apply to child and adolescent psychiatry and to provide a model for patient care.KEYPOINTSClinical excellence in child and adolescent psychiatry has not previously been defined or extensively documented.The Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence (MCACE) has developed a systematic method to measuring excellence in clinical care and created a definition of clinical excellence.The MCACE defined the domains of clinical excellence as communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and humanism, diagnostic acumen, skilful negotiation of the healthcare system, knowledge, scholarly approach to clinical practice, exhibiting a passion for patient care and modelling clinical excellence, and collaborating with investigators to advance science and discovery.There are numerous case examples in the literature that represent mastery in paediatric psychiatry in these areas.Clinicians in paediatric mental health will likely benefit from future research on evidence-based approaches to training and education in these domains of clinical excellence.

Real-Life Clinical Experience With Cariprazine: A Systematic Review of Case Studies

Background

The hierarchy of evidence coming from evidence-based medicine favors meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials over observational studies and clinical cases. Nonetheless, in the field of psychiatry, where conditions are much more complex, additional evidence coming from real-world clinical practice is necessary to complement data from these gold standards. Thus, in this systematic review, the aim is to summarize the evidence coming from clinical case reports regarding cariprazine, a third-generation antipsychotic drug that has been approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder with manic, depressive or mixed features in adults.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using Embase and Pubmed databases searching for English-language cases published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 January and 2021 September with the following search terms: (cariprazin* OR "rgh-188" OR rgh188 OR vraylar OR reagila) AND ("case report*" OR "case report"/de OR "case stud*" OR "case study"/de OR "case seri*").

Results

After the removal of duplicates, 49 articles were retrieved via the search, from which 22 were suitable for this review. These 22 articles encompassed 38 cases from which 71% described patients with schizophrenia, 16% patients with psychotic disorders, 5% patients with mood disorder and 8% described patients with other disorders such as Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder with paranoid schizophrenia. The median age of patients was 31, and half of them were female. The majority of patients (76%) started cariprazine with 1.5 mg/day, and the most common maintenance dose was 4.5 mg/day (34%) and 3.0 mg/day (29%).

Conclusion

Cariprazine was found to be safe and effective in a wide range of psychiatric conditions with different symptom profiles from acute psychotic symptoms through addiction to negative and cognitive symptoms. The results are in-line with the established evidence from clinical trials, however, they also show how cariprazine can be successfully utilized for treating certain symptoms irrespective of the indication.

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 1): Recovering original, moderate evidence-based health care

Evidence-based medicine announced its entry as heralding a new paradigm in health care practices, but it has been widely criticized for lacking a coherent theoretical basis. This paper presents the first part of a three-article series examining the epistemological, practical, and ethical dimensions of strong EBM, as well as considering alternatives that promise potential solutions to chronic conceptual and practical problems. While the focus is on the details of the arguments and evidence in thoughtful debates over the last 30 years, it is worthwhile to keep in mind the overall trajectory of modern thought, because strong EBM continues discredited positivist positions, thus repeating its major assumptions and inadequacies, now transferred to the medical sphere and vocabulary. Part 1 of the series examines the development of strong EBM by clarifying and critiquing its somewhat discontinuous accounts of scientific knowledge and epistemology, evidence, the differences between statistical probability in regard to populations and understanding the health of individuals, and its claims for direct transfer of research findings to clinical settings-all of which raises more questions regarding its application to provider-patient decision making, pedagogy, and policy.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychiatry Core Trainees in Northwest England

OBJECTIVE

Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychiatrists in training have only been researched with reference to prescribing decisions. We sought to quantitatively describe general EBP barriers and facilitators perceived by psychiatry core trainees (CTs) in England.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of CTs from a single English region in their 1st to 3rd year of specialist training (CT1-3) uses the EBP inventory, a 26-item questionnaire subdivided into the domains of attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioral control (PBC), decision-making preferences, and intention and behavior. This was analyzed using a multiple indicators multiple causes model.

RESULTS

The response rate was 42.9% (72/168 CTs). In all, domain's responses overall tended to be positive toward EBP. The most commonly reported barriers were rarely discussing research literature, feeling incapable of staying up to date, aversion to statistics, a preference for intuition or experience, and a perception that EBP disregards the individual differences between patients. Attitudes, norms, and behavior all loaded onto their intended factors. The decision-making factor was not present and PBC subdivided into 2 factors: clinical and knowledge self-efficacy. Regression coefficients for predicting behavior from the other factors were attitudes - 0.16 (p = 0.34), norms 0.34 (p = 0.24), clinical PBC - 0.28 (p = 0.10), and knowledge PBC 0.613 (p = 0.01). Additionally, question 5 (EBP respects individual patients) and question 13 (discusses research literature with colleagues) independently predicted behavior (β = 0.388; p = 0.05 and β = 0.433; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EBP intention and behavior were associated with perceiving EBP as relevant to individual patients, discussion about research with colleagues, and knowledge self-efficacy.

L’evidence-based medicine, un projet épistémologique et éthique en porte-à-faux avec la psychiatrie ?

Le discours psychiatrique contemporain dominant repose principalement sur un paradigme médico-technologique où la souffrance mentale est conceptualisée comme un « mécanisme défectueux » qui nécessite une « réparation » grâce à l’arsenal médical. Dans ce contexte, l’evidence-based medicine (EBM) a donc été largement adopté par la psychiatrie à la fin des années 90. L’EBM est une proposition qui vise à influencer et même légiférer la prise de décisions cliniques en mettant de l’avant l’idée d’une hiérarchie des évidences, où le savoir tiré d’essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) et de méta-analyses a préséance sur les informations tirées d’autres sources. Ainsi, comme l’EBM favorise ces outils de création de savoir (ECRs et méta-analyses) il en découle que le savoir qui compte véritablement dans le paradigme EBM est celui qui est mesurable et spécifique ; deux conditions préalables nécessaires pour l’utilisation même de ces outils. En conséquence, l’EBM diminue la valeur et va même jusqu’à ignorer d’autres formes d’évidences, de savoir et de justifications pour la prise de décisions cliniques. Du point de vue éthique, le concept EBM soutient que la « bonne chose à faire » est d’appliquer le savoir produit par l’EBM dans le contexte clinique. Les autres formes de savoir pouvant être impliquées dans la prise de décisions cliniques, mais qui ne peuvent pas être étudiées via l’EBM, sont dévalorisées d’un point de vue éthique. La littérature révisée et explorée ici considère donc que l’EBM est mal adapté à la réalité de la pratique psychiatrique. L’EBM ne peut pas, par définition, prendre en compte les spécificités de la discipline, notamment pour ce qui est des diagnostics psychiatriques ; leur complexité rend les évidences produites par l’EBM d’une validité questionnable. Le concept ne peut pas non plus tenir compte des spécificités des thérapeutiques psychiatriques. Les facteurs thérapeutiques non spécifiques, ceux discrédités par l’EBM, sont cruciaux pour les soins de santé mentale. Également, les observations portant sur des aspects de l’esprit, sur des expériences subjectives, ne sont que bien incorrectement traduites en résultats statistiques, mesurables et spécifiques. Ces observations amènent le présent essai à considérer qu’il serait peut-être préférable pour la psychiatrie, de rejeter la « hiérarchie des évidences » de l’EBM, et de développer son propre « système des savoirs ». Celui-ci devrait prendre en compte la position épistémologique unique de la psychiatrie, où subjectivité, contextes, et valeurs pourraient occuper de façon légitime la place qui leur revient dans la prise de décisions cliniques en psychiatrie. Bien qu’une alternative à l’EBM en psychiatrie n’ait pas encore été établie, la littérature, et ce papier pointent vers l’idée d’un « système des savoirs » plus flexible que ce qu’offre l’EBM en termes épistémologiques, où les aspects éthiques reliés à la discipline, incluant l’éthique du savoir, l’éthique de « ce qui compte comme évidence », revêtent une importance cruciale.

Current therapeutic options for Huntington's disease: good clinical practice versus evidence-based approaches?

Therapeutic decision-making in Huntington's disease (HD) is often guided by clinical experience, because of the limited empirical evidence available. The only medication for HD that has met the regulatory hurdle for approval is tetrabenazine, indicated for the treatment of chorea. However, its use has limitations, and in the setting of specific contraindications or comorbidities the treatment of choice for chorea is still the multipurpose antipsychotics. For the management of psychiatric disturbances, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and mood stabilizers are often used, although empirical evidence is lacking. Finally, no known effective treatment is available for cognitive dysfunction in HD. We discuss the limited evidence available and current expert opinion on medical treatment of the dominant motor, psychiatric, and cognitive features of HD. This follows a brief introduction on the general principles of HD management and on evidence-based medicine in relation to clinical practice.

Talking science and wishing for miracles: understanding cultures of mental health practice

Science can only offer a limited account of, and prescription for, mental health care. Yet the language of science and faith in the universal applicability of particular scientific methods to the craft of mental health care has come to permeate mental health practice communities. In this paper, the argument that many beliefs held by mental health professionals might be considered to be based on faith rather than science is presented, and the view that culture provides a useful lens for understanding mental health services and these paradoxes is proposed. Clearly there is a grand mental health narrative or colonizing influence of biological psychiatry that in various ways affects all mainstream mental health services. Local health services and professional communities might be considered subcultures. Understanding how mental health professions and practice are embedded in culture might be useful in considering how practice changes and why. Culture and caring practices are mutually embedded in localized subcultures. Therefore, a rich description of context and history is necessary in publication, presentation, or other communications to enable genuine understanding by a global audience. Viewing mental health practice in a cultural context highlights the importance of values and differences, and encourages humility in the face of ambiguity.

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy: a contemporary perspective

A contemporary perspective on psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy views both treatments as somatic in nature. Abandoning Cartesian dualism frees the clinician to consider therapeutic options based on the best available evidence rather than falsely dichotomizing approaches as biological or psychological. Evidence-based medicine is a helpful though limited paradigm upon which to base treatment decisions. Instead, clinicians should strive for an evidence-informed approach that is patient centered. This approach is illustrated in relation to depressive illness where moderators of outcome are examined (illness severity, history of trauma, personality disorders, patient preference) that will influence clinical recommendations on combining treatment. Psychotherapy is increasingly proving to be a valuable therapeutic modality across the severity spectrum, a finding at odds with current treatment practices.

Evidence-based medicine and progress in the medical sciences

The question what scientific progress means for a particular domain such as medicine seems importantly different from the question what scientific progress is in general. While the latter question received ample treatment in the philosophical literature, the former question is hardly discussed. I argue that it is nonetheless important to think about this question in view of the methodological choices we make. I raise specific questions that should be tackled regarding scientific progress in the medical sciences and demonstrate their importance by means of an analysis of what evidence-based medicine (EBM) has, and has not, to offer in terms of progress. I show how critically thinking about EBM from the point of view of progress can help us in putting EBM and its favoured methodologies in the right perspective. My conclusion will be that blindly favouring certain methods because of their immediately tangible short-term benefits implies that we parry the important question of how best to advance progress in the long run. This leads us to losing sight of our general goals in doing research in the medical sciences.

Evidence-based medicine: opportunities and challenges in a diverse society

In this article we explore the discourse and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the context of social and cultural diversity. The article consists of 2 parts. First, we begin by defining EBM, describing its historical development and current ascendance in medical practice. We then note its importance in contemporary psychiatry, comparing dynamics between the United States and Canada. Secondly, we offer a constructive critique of the application of EBM and evidence-based practices in the context of ethnocultural diversity, as one consistent reflection on the EBM literature is that it is does not adequately address issues of diversity. In doing so, we use the situation here in Canada as an extended case study, though our observations will likely be applicable in other diverse nations, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. We critically examine the following 6 issues related to the practice of EBM in a diverse society: generalizability and transferability of evidence-based interventions; diversifying standards of evidence in EBM; strategies to address diversity in EBM research; cultural adaptations of evidence-based interventions; integrating idiographic knowledge; and, training and health service delivery. Concurrent with our critique, we offer research and practice suggestions that may address outstanding challenges vis-à-vis the practice of EBM in a diverse society. These include a need for more effectiveness research, more openness to diverse sources of knowledge, better integration of idiographic and nomothetic knowledge, and a critical approach to extrapolation and transfer of knowledge.

Evidence-based medicine in psychopharmacotherapy: possibilities, problems and limitations

Psychopharmacotherapy should now be regulated in the sense of evidence-based medicine, as is the case in other areas of clinical treatment in medicine. In general this is a meaningful development, which principally will have a positive impact on routine health care in psychiatry. But several related problems should not be ignored. So far consensus on an internationally accepted evidence graduation could not be reached due to several difficulties related to this. For example, focussing on the results of meta-analyses instead of considering relevant single studies results in a decision-making logic which is in conflict with the rationale applied by drug authorities in the licensing process. Another example is the relevance of placebo-controlled trials: if randomized placebo-controlled phase-III studies are prioritized in the evidence grading, the evidence possibly deviates too far from the conditions of routine clinical care due to the special selection of patients in those studies. However, a grading primarily based on active comparator trials could lead to wrong conclusions about efficacy. This concerns especially the so-called "effectiveness" studies and other forms of phase-IV studies with their less restrictive methodological rigidity. Attempts to regulate psychopharmacotherapy in the sense of evidence-based medicine come closer to their limits the more complex the clinical situation and the respective decision-making logic are. Even in times of evidence-based medicine a large part of complex clinical decision-making in psychopharmacotherapy still relies more on clinical experience and a consensus on clinical experience, traditions and belief systems than on results of efficacy oriented phase-III and effectiveness-oriented phase-IV clinical studies.

Is evidence sufficient for evidence-based medicine?

Psychopharmacotherapy should now be regulated in the sense of evidence-based medicine (EBM), as is the case in other areas of clinical treatment in medicine. In general this is a meaningful development, which will principally have a positive impact on routine health care in psychiatry. But several related problems should not be ignored. So far consensus on an internationally accepted evidence graduation could not be reached, due to several difficulties related to this. A principle question is also whether it is sufficient to base EBM primarily on the results of phase III trials with their high internal validity. Restrictions to generalise findings of phase III trials suggest the need for additional sources of evidence, amongst others "effectiveness" studies and other kinds of phase IV studies with their less restrictive methodological standards. Attempts to regulate psychopharmacotherapy in the sense of evidence-based medicine come closer to their limits the more complex the clinical situation and the respective decision-making logic are. Even in times of evidence-based medicine we are faced with the situation that a large part of complex clinical decision-making in psychopharmacotherapy still relies more on personal clinical experience and a group consensus about clinical experience, traditions and belief systems than on results of efficacy oriented phase III and effectiveness-oriented phase IV clinical studies.

[Introduction of the module "Evidence-based Medicine" in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry into the psychiatry block practicum at the University of Ulm]

OBJECTIVE

The essential need for the timely availability of additional relevant information has resulted in a focus on "Evidence-based Medicine" (EBM) in medical practice. In Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (CAP) training it is essential to impart knowledge of how to effectively use the available literature, since the evidence for many therapies is still poor.

METHOD

We modified the "Duke Model" for teaching EBM in CAP to better attune it to the educational needs of a German university. We describe the introduction of the teaching module "Evidence-based Medicine in CAP" in practical clinical training.

RESULTS

Integrating EBM into mandatory practical training enables the students to deal with problems that directly pertain to patient treatment, thus motivating them to access and read relevant scientific literature. An initial evaluation of this pilot project shows the successful linkage of research with clinical routine and also the conveyance of improved decision making abilities as well as an attitude of life-long learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifying the EBM-module for practical clinical training is an innovative approach to integrating EBM into medical curricula. In the course of a curricular reform, "EBM cross sectional training" for all medical students was introduced into the new curriculum of the Medical School at the University of Ulm.

Neuropsychiatric clinical trials: should they accommodate real-world practices or set standards for clinical practices?

Evidence-based psychiatry seeks the best research evidence for use in patient care. Recent research suggests that problems with accuracy, precision, bias, and other sources of unreliability potentially interfere with the validity of psychiatry's evidence base. Because many negative clinical research studies go unpublished, awareness and fuller understanding of these problems are blocked by lack of access to relevant data. Based on the importance of scientific soundness of neuropsychiatric research and patient care, we argue for increased attentiveness by investigators and practitioners to how clinical trials (CTs) interdependently estimate the efficacy of treatments and the effectiveness of methods as fair tests of efficacy. Deference by CT investigators to real-world practice conditions at research sites because of the unreliability introduced into data by these practices does not ensure unbiased evaluations of treatment efficacy. We argue for more systematic attention to sources of unreliability in CT investigations and increased commitments to assure the validity of the neuropsychiatric evidence base. These recommendations aim to determine neuropsychiatric drug efficacy with greater certainty to better quantify the clinical importance of drug-associated effects and to provide CT-evidenced guidance for practitioners to most effectively use drug efficacy in patient care.