Clinical and Functional Outcome of Assertive Outreach for Patients With Schizophrenic Disorder: Results of a Quasi-Experimental Controlled Trial

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

A One-Year Follow Up Study on Disability in Mental Health Nursing Practice

Disability is common in patients with mental disorders, and therapeutic approaches should promote functional recovery to achieve the highest quality of life. This study reports changes in WHODAS 2.0 scores at 1 year of follow-up among patients receiving care from a single mental-health nurse in a community setting in Spain and compare these changes by diagnosis (SMI vs. CMI). Baseline and 1-year follow-up scores were compared. For all participants, we collected sociodemographic information, clinical diagnosis, and disability scores according to WHODAS 2.0. Participating patients received the usual, non-manualized nursing intervention. Our sample comprised 133 patients, 75 of whom were assessed after 1 year. All patients had improved WHODAS 2.0 scores (difference of 9.20 ± 2.42; p < .001) in all domains except those domains related to work ("Life activities") and relationships ("Getting along"). Furthermore, almost half of the patients studied were no longer undergoing treatment with the nurse at 1-year follow-up.

[Evidence on the effects of crisis resolution teams, home treatment and assertive outreach for people with mental disorders in Germany, Austria and Switzerland - a systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Based on international randomized controlled trials (RCT) the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) recommends acute treatment in the domestic environment (AHU) and intensive outreach treatment (IAB) with the highest level of evidence; however, due to large differences in national healthcare systems the transference of results from international studies to the healthcare systems in Germany, Austria and Switzerland could be limited.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of studies on outreach psychiatric treatment forms in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and discussion of the results in the light of international evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search for clinical trials on outreach community treatment from Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

A total of 19 publications were identified which could be assigned to 5 publications on 4 studies with 2857 patients on AHU and 14 publications on 10 studies with 3207 patients on IAB. The studies on AHU showed this treatment form to be superior regarding the duration of inpatient stay and healthcare costs. The studies on IAB showed more positive outcomes in comparison to controls regarding symptoms, severity of illness, substance abuse, functioning level, remission, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, healthcare costs, work and housing situations.

CONCLUSION

The studies from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland suggest that outreach community treatment is superior regarding several outcome parameters. Thus, there are no indications suggesting that international evidence could not be valid for these countries. Additionally, with one RCT for AHU and one for IAB the requirements for an evidence level of 1b for outreach community treatment in the healthcare systems in question are fulfilled.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community-based mental health care programme (GBV) for people with severe mental illness in Germany: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The community-based mental health care programme GBV is based on the British Community Mental Health Teams and the Dutch Flexible Assertive Community Treatment model. In addition, the programme offers crisis-intervention services. A special feature of this integrated care programme is the initial standardised assessment process regarding empowerment, unmet care needs, and psychosocial functioning, used to verify the need for such a comprehensive form of care. The project evaluates the assessment process and analyses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of GBV compared to treatment as usual.

METHODS

This randomised, controlled study includes five assessments over 2 years. In twelve regions in Germany, 1000 patients with severely impaired psychosocial functioning and unmet care needs will be recruited. Study eligibility relies on an indication for GBV based on the results of the initial assessment. The primary outcome is improved self-reported empowerment. Further outcomes include improved treatment satisfaction and subjective quality of life, reductions in patients' unmet needs and illness-related clinical and social impairment, and an improved cost-effectiveness ratio of the resources used (from the perspectives of both statutory health insurance and the national economy). In addition, the GBV's effects on the burden and quality of life of informal caregivers of patients will be investigated.

DISCUSSION

The study's results are expected to provide information on whether the community-based mental health care programme GBV contributes to improving mental health care provision in Germany. In addition, the study will show whether the GBV successfully overcomes the weaknesses that former research has identified regarding a German integrated care programme. Such improvement is particularly expected with respect to the semi-structured assessment within GBV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trial Register, DRKS00019086 . Registered on 3 January 2020.

Translation and initial validation of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS) in Italian patients with Crohn's Disease

The MARS-5 (Medication Adherence Report Scale) was developed in English. The aim of this project was to analyse the MARS-5I (© Prof Rob Horne) psychometric properties and to identify whether its Italian translation is suitable for assessing medication adherence in Crohn Disease (CD) Italian patients. The MARS was translated and linguistically validated in Italian. The MARS-5I was used for evaluating medication adherence in the SOLE study, conducted in Italy on 552 subjects with CD. In order to un-bias the questionnaire results from the effects of treatment change and/or effectiveness, the analyses were performed on the 277 patients whose disease activity remained stable, selected among the 371 patients who maintained the same treatment between two consecutive visits. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.86). Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.50 (p<0.001) and 0.86 (p<0.001- outliers removed), indicating satisfactory test-retest. MARS 5I scores were not correlated with Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication but a small and statistically significant correlation was shown with physician-evaluated medication adherence, indicating convergent validity. MARS-5I, the Italian translation of the English MARS, showed satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest, and a low but statistically significant convergent validity. We confirmed the utility of this tool in patients with CD.

Does one size really fit all? The effectiveness of a non-diagnosis-specific integrated mental health care program in Germany in a prospective, parallel-group controlled multi-centre trial

BACKGROUND

The Network for Mental Health (NWpG-IC) is an integrated mental health care program implemented in 2009 by cooperation between health insurance companies and community mental health providers in Germany. Meanwhile about 10,000 patients have been enrolled. This is the first study evaluating the effectiveness of the program in comparison to standard mental health care in Germany.

METHODS

In a parallel-group controlled trial over 18 months conducted in five regions across Germany, a total of 260 patients enrolled in NWpG-IC and 251 patients in standard mental health care (TAU) were recruited between August 2013 and November 2014. The NWpG-IC patients had access to special services such as community-based multi-professional teams, case management, crisis intervention and family-oriented psychoeducation in addition to standard mental health care. The primary outcome empowerment (EPAS) and the secondary outcomes quality of life (WHO-QoL-BREF), satisfaction with psychiatric treatment (CSQ-8), psychosocial and clinical impairment (HoNOS) and information about mental health service needs (CAN) were measured four times at 6-month intervals. Linear mixed-effect regression models were used to estimate the main effects and interaction effects of treatment, time and primary diagnosis. Due to the non-randomised group assignment, propensity score adjustment was used to control the selection bias.

RESULTS

NWpG-IC and TAU groups did not differ with respect to most primary and secondary outcomes in our participating patients who showed a broad spectrum of psychiatric diagnoses and illness severities. However, a significant improvement in terms of patients' satisfaction with psychiatric care and their perception of treatment participation in favour of the NWpG-IC group was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing integrated mental health care for unspecific mentally ill target groups increases treatment participation and service satisfaction but seems not suitable to enhance the overall outcomes of mental health care in Germany. The implementation of strategies for ameliorating the needs orientation of the NWpG-IC should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00005111 , registered 26 July 2013.

Policies, guideline implementation and practice change - how can the process be understood?

Politics and policy: It is important to understand why, in the translational continuum from pilot research and randomised controlled efficacy trials to roll-out programmes and routine effectiveness studies, some service innovations are taken up by health service purchasers and providers, while others are not. Why do some innovative interventions or models of care get to the stage of implementation, while others fail to be funded?

[Acute day hospital as a cost-effective alternative to inpatient therapy]

BACKGROUND

This is a study of the cost-benefit advantage of the model project acute day hospital (ATK) compared to inpatient care.

METHODS

The study was performed retrospectively and examined the direct costs and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) in a matched sample.

RESULTS

The day clinic treatment compared to inpatient therapy showed at a cost benefit of 2.68: 1 at a slightly delayed increase in GAF-value.

CONCLUSION

The treatment in ATK is more than twice as cheap compared to inpatient treatment, but at a slightly slower improvement in symptoms.

World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review examines research and practical applications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a basis for establishing specific criteria for evaluating relevant international scientific literature. The aims were to establish the extent of international dissemination and use of WHODAS 2.0 and analyze psychometric research on its various translations and adaptations. In particular, we wanted to highlight which psychometric features have been investigated, focusing on the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this instrument.

METHOD

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we conducted a search for publications focused on "whodas" using the ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases.

RESULTS

We identified 810 studies from 94 countries published between 1999 and 2015. WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and used in 27 areas of research (40% in psychiatry).

CONCLUSIONS

The growing number of studies indicates increasing interest in the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing individual functioning and disability in different settings and individual health conditions. The WHODAS 2.0 shows strong correlations with several other measures of activity limitations; probably due to the fact that it shares the same disability latent variable with them. Implications for Rehabilitation WHODAS 2.0 seems to be a valid, reliable self-report instrument for the assessment of disability. The increasing interest in use of the WHODAS 2.0 extends to rehabilitation and life sciences rather than being limited to psychiatry. WHODAS 2.0 is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations. A critical issue for rehabilitation is that a single "minimal clinically important .difference" score for the WHODAS 2.0 has not yet been established.