Benefits and harms of providing biological causal models in the treatment of psychosis--an experimental study

The role of the communicated treatment rationale on treatment outcome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo effects are a well-established phenomenon in the treatment of depression. However, the mechanism underlying these effects are not fully understood. Treatment expectations are considered one explanation for why placebos work. Treatment expectations are likely to be affected by clinician-patient interactions. This study aims to investigate the role of the communicated treatment rationale in modulating treatment expectations and its effects on the treatment outcomes of a pharmacological and a psychological active placebo intervention for depression. In this study, treatment expectations are modulated by presenting illness models that are either congruent or incongruent with the treatment intervention that follows.

METHODS

This 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial will involve patients with major depression. Participants will either receive a biological or a psychological illness model from a clinician. Following this, they are randomly assigned to receive either a pharmacological or a psychological active placebo intervention. The illness model and the treatment are either congruent or incongruent with each other, resulting in four groups. In addition, a natural course control group will be included.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide insights into the mechanism of expectation modulation in active placebo treatments for major depression. The results may provide insights for clinicians to improve their communication with patients by focusing on treatment expectations. By identifying the factors that contribute to placebo effects, this study has the potential to improve the effectiveness of existing depression treatments and reduce the burden of this highly prevalent mental health condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier: NCT04719663. Registered on January 22, 2021.

Measuring the effectiveness of psychoeducation on adherence, depression, anxiety and stress among patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia. a control trial

Despite evidence of the impact of depression and stress on attitudes towards medication in general medical pathology regimens, little is known of the effects of depression and stress on attitudes towards medication in schizophrenia. This study explores the effects of a hope-based psychoeducation on attitudes towards medication, depression, anxiety and stress, and predictors of attitudes towards medication. The participants in the study (n = 29) were randomly allocated to either the psychoeducation group or the control group. Results from the psychoeducation group revealed that attitudes towards medication were significantly improved and anxiety was significantly reduced. Given the small sample, which was recruited from among patients of a day mental health centre, findings should be interpreted tentatively. Being longer in pharmacotherapy, having experienced fewer occurrences of hospitalisation, and being less depressed predicted positivity towards medication. Patients in the control group did not exhibit significant change in any of the studied variables. Findings were interpreted in the light of research on stigma and insight into illness, and add modestly to literature arguing for the importance of patients’ retention of hope, empowerment and sense of control over illness. This study proposed that psychoeducation is an appropriate intervention to address a wide range of factors that compound adherence to medication and patients’ symptoms, such as patients’ interpretations of causal models, their sense of hope and control over the illness, and their insight into illness and self-stigma.

Biomedical Explanations of Psychopathology and Their Implications for Attitudes and Beliefs About Mental Disorders

Mental disorders are increasingly conceptualized as biomedical diseases, explained as manifestations of genetic and neurobiological abnormalities. Here, we discuss changes in the dominant explanatory accounts of psychopathology that have occurred over time and the driving forces behind these shifts, lay out some real-world evidence for the increasing ascendancy of biomedical explanations, and provide an overview of the types of attitudes and beliefs that may be affected by them. We examine theoretical and conceptual models that are relevant to understanding how biomedical conceptualizations might affect attitudes and beliefs about mental disorders, and we review some empirical evidence that bears on this question. Finally, we examine possible strategies for combatting potential negative effects of biomedical explanations and discuss important conclusions and directions for future research.

The impact of negative treatment experiences on persistent refusal of antipsychotics

AIMS

We investigate reasons for persistent medication refusal in schizophrenia spectrum disorders and test whether factors that speak for a rational decision, such as negative experiences with medication or low symptom distress predict medication refusal, even after taking differences in insight into account.

METHOD

We included 45 participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, of which 20 had refused antipsychotic medication for at least three months and assessed reasons for taking or not taking medication, labeling condition as mental disorder ("insight"), experiences with the previous treatments, symptoms and symptom distress, positive and negative consequences and experiences of psychosis, causal beliefs, therapeutic relationships with previous clinicians and attitudes towards medication.

RESULTS

Groups did not differ in symptom severity but medication refusers reported significantly less insight, less satisfaction with their most-recent psychiatrist and with previous medication, and more negative beliefs about harmful effects of medication. They also felt less informed about medication. After controlling for insight, the perceived helpfulness of the previous treating psychiatrist (OR=0.30, z=5.58, p=0.018) and of previous medication (OR=0.27, z=6.87, p=0.009) and feeling insufficiently informed about medication (OR=0.53, z=3. 85, p=0.050) significantly predicted medication discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Building rapport with patients with a different view of the nature of their condition and encouraging informed decisions on medication are likely to improve medication adherence. However, the findings also suggest that refusing medication after a phase of initial adherence is also the consequence of negative experiences with medication and could result from weighing the pros against the cons.

Case formulation in clinical practice: Associations with psychological mindedness, attachment and burnout in staff working with people experiencing psychosis

OBJECTIVES

Case formulation can impact on therapeutic relationships, staff understanding and outcomes, which might be particularly important when working with complex mental health problems such as psychosis. However, the evidence base is equivocal and there is insufficient understanding around the staff-related factors that influence effective psychological case formulation. This study investigated the influence of staff characteristics (both professional and personal) on case formulation skill.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study, with all of the measures collected at the same time point.

METHODS

Fifty staff members working on inpatient wards with individuals experiencing psychosis were recruited. Measures included independently rated case formulation skill and psychological mindedness (the ability to draw together aspects of thoughts, feelings and actions), both in relation to hypothetical cases. Self-report questionnaires assessed psychological mindedness, attachment styles, symptoms of burnout and professional qualifications.

RESULTS

The preliminary analyses indicated that case formulation skill was associated with higher psychological mindedness (both self-reported and independently-rated) and lower levels of avoidant attachment styles. Simultaneous entry multiple regression demonstrated that the only independent predictor of case formulation skill was independently rated psychological mindedness.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the factors that contribute to staff's ability to case formulate and the possibility for services to develop psychological mindedness and case formulation skills through formal training, alongside fostering a psychological minded working environment.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Case formulation skill is positively associated with the personal ability (or inclination) to draw together aspects of experience in a psychological manner (i.e., psychological mindedness) It might also be important to consider avoidant attachment tendencies in relation to formulation skills The sample was relatively small and drawn from a limited number of services, which might reduce the generalizability of the findings Psychological mindedness might not be captured adequately by self-report tools and services may wish to employ more novel ways of assessing this important skill in staff groups (such as the speech sample used in the current study).

The potential of continuum versus biogenetic beliefs in reducing stigmatization against persons with schizophrenia: An experimental study

OBJECTIVE

A central aspect of previous anti-stigma campaigns was the promotion of biogenetic causes of schizophrenia. Although biogenetic beliefs have been shown to reduce the blame given to persons with schizophrenia, they tend to increase discrimination and stereotypes such as dangerousness and unpredictability. A novel anti-stigma approach is to incorporate continuum beliefs in order to oppose the perceived separation, which is a main component of the stigma process. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of a continuum, a biogenetic, and a control intervention on stereotypes, fear, and social distance towards persons with schizophrenia. Furthermore, it was intended to replicate earlier findings on the associations between continuum beliefs, biogenetic beliefs, and different facets of stigmatization.

METHOD

In an online-experiment, 1189 participants from the general population randomly received either a continuum, a biogenetic, or a control intervention, which consisted of written information texts.

RESULTS

The continuum group showed less endorsement of the stereotype incompetence/unpredictability than the biogenetic group. The biogenetic group ascribed less blame to persons with schizophrenia than the other groups. The correlation analyses indicated continuum beliefs to be consistently associated with lower stereotype scores, less fear, and less preferred social distance.

LIMITATIONS

The sample was not fully representative and the experimental manipulations in our study consisted of relatively short information texts.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that continuum beliefs have the potential to reduce stigmatization against persons with schizophrenia. However, future studies need to investigate the effects of more powerful interventions to promote them.

The relationships between patients' and caregivers' beliefs about the causes of schizophrenia and clinical outcomes in Latin American countries

Beliefs about the causes of schizophrenia are thought to impact treatment outcomes. We investigated 3 theoretically opposing belief systems (biological, psychosocial, magical-religious) in relation to the severity of positive and negative symptoms and to attitudes towards medications. We recruited 253 patients with schizophrenia and their primary caregivers from public mental health clinics in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. We assessed patients' and caregivers' beliefs about the causes of schizophrenia, which were used as predictors of symptom severity and medication attitudes in linear regression analyses. Patients' scores on biological, psychosocial, and magical-religious beliefs were positively correlated with one another, indicating that these domains were not, as anticipated, "opposing". Patients with higher levels of biological and psychosocial beliefs had significantly lower levels of positive and negative symptoms; in contrast, higher levels of magical-religious beliefs were associated with increased positive symptoms and less favorable attitudes towards medications. Patients' belief systems are significant predictors of symptom severity and medication attitudes. Research is needed on the extent to which psychotherapeutic treatments for schizophrenia should bolster patients' beliefs in the biological and psychosocial domains and weaken beliefs in the magical-religious domain; this research should also attend to the ethical considerations involved in intervening on belief systems cross-culturally.

Der Beitrag subjektiver Krankheitsrepräsentationen zur Erklärung beeinträchtigter Krankheitseinsicht bei Schizophrenie

Theoretischer Hintergrund: Die Genese von Defiziten der Krankheitseinsicht bei Schizophrenie wird bisher unzureichend und teilweise widersprüchlich erklärt. Mehrfaktorielle Einsichtsmodelle, die inkonsistente Befunde integrieren, existieren kaum. Fragestellung: Kann ein typologischer Ansatz und die Erweiterung um die gesundheitspsychologische Perspektive subjektiver Krankheitskonzepte bisherige klinisch-psychiatrische Einsichtsmodelle verbessern? Methode: Für 95 Personen mit Diagnosen aus dem Schizophrenie-Spektrum wurden Krankheitseinsicht, subjektive Krankheitskonzepte, Symptomatik und Neurokognition querschnittlich erhoben. Ergebnisse: Eine einsichtige, kognitiv intakte sowie zwei uneinsichtige Subgruppen (kognitiv beeinträchtigt vs. unbeeinträchtigt) wurden clusteranalytisch identifiziert. Letztere ließ sich anhand von mehr Positivsymptomen, Bewertungen von verringerter Kontrollierbarkeit und emotionaler Bedeutung ihrer Problematik multinomial vorhersagen (R2N = .56). Schlussfolgerungen: Der Einschluss subjektiver Krankheitskonzepte in klinisch-psychiatrische Einsichtsmodelle erscheint fruchtbar. Neben einer defizitbasierten Uneinsichtigkeit lassen sich angesichts spezifischer Krankheitsbewertungen motivationale Einsichtsbarrieren vermuten.

Explaining attitudes and adherence to antipsychotic medication: the development of a process model

Although nonadherence to antipsychotic medication poses a threat to outcome of medical treatment, the processes preceding the intake behavior have not been investigated sufficiently. This study tests a process model of medication adherence derived from the Health Belief Model which is based on cost-benefit considerations. The model includes an extensive set of potential predictors for medication attitudes and uses these attitudes as a predictor for medication adherence. We conducted an online study of 84 participants with a self-reported psychotic disorder and performed a path analysis. More insight into the need for treatment, a higher attribution of the symptoms to a mental disorder, experience of less negative side effects, presence of biological causal beliefs, and less endorsement of psychological causal beliefs were significant predictors of more positive attitudes towards medication. The results largely supported the postulated process model. Mental health professionals should consider attitudes towards medication and the identified predictors when they address adherence problems with the patient in a shared and informed decision process.

Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related stigma

BACKGROUND

Mental health-related stigma is widespread and has major adverse effects on the lives of people with mental health problems. Its two major components are discrimination (being treated unfairly) and prejudice (stigmatising attitudes). Anti-stigma initiatives often include mass media interventions, and such interventions can be expensive. It is important to know if mass media interventions are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mass media interventions on reducing stigma (discrimination and prejudice) related to mental ill health compared to inactive controls, and to make comparisons of effectiveness based on the nature of the intervention (e.g. number of mass media components), the content of the intervention (e.g. type of primary message), and the type of media (e.g. print, internet).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched eleven databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011); MEDLINE (OvidSP),1966 to 15 August 2011; EMBASE (OvidSP),1947 to 15 August 2011; PsycINFO (OvidSP), 1806 to 15 August 2011; CINAHL (EBSCOhost) 1981 to 16 August 2011; ERIC (CSA), 1966 to 16 August 2011; Social Science Citation Index (ISI), 1956 to 16 August 2011; OpenSIGLE (http://www.opengrey.eu/), 1980 to 18 August 2012; Worldcat Dissertations and Theses (OCLC), 1978 to 18 August 2011; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/mrct_about.asp), 1973 to 18 August 2011; and Ichushi (OCLC), 1903 to 11 November 2011. We checked references from articles and reviews, and citations from included studies. We also searched conference abstracts and websites, and contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs or interrupted time series studies of mass media interventions compared to inactive controls in members of the general public or any of its constituent groups (excluding studies in which all participants were people with mental health problems), with mental health as a subject of the intervention and discrimination or prejudice outcome measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for missing information. Information about adverse effects was collected from study reports. Primary outcomes were discrimination and prejudice, and secondary outcomes were knowledge, cost, reach, recall, and awareness of interventions, duration/sustainability of media effects, audience reactions to media content, and unforeseen adverse effects. We calculated standardised mean differences and odds ratios. We conducted a primarily narrative synthesis due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effects of the nature, content and type of mass media intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies involving 4490 participants. All were randomised trials (3 were cluster RCTs), and 19 of the 22 studies had analysable outcome data. Seventeen of the studies had student populations. Most of the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for all forms of bias except detection bias.Findings from the five trials with discrimination outcomes (n = 1196) were mixed, with effects showing a reduction, increase or consistent with no evidence of effect. The median standardised mean difference (SMD) for the three trials (n = 394) with continuous outcomes was -0.25, with SMDs ranging from -0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to -0.31) to -0.17 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.20). Odds ratios (OR) for the two studies (n = 802) with dichotomous discrimination outcomes showed no evidence of effect: results were 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.19) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.65).The 19 trials (n = 3176) with prejudice outcomes had median SMDs favouring the intervention, at the three following time periods: -0.38 (immediate), -0.38 (1 week to 2 months) and -0.49 (6 to 9 months). SMDs for prejudice outcomes across all studies ranged from -2.94 (95% CI -3.52 to -2.37) to 2.40 (95% CI 0.62 to 4.18). The median SMDs indicate that mass media interventions may have a small to medium effect in decreasing prejudice, and are equivalent to reducing the level of prejudice from that associated with schizophrenia to that associated with major depression.The studies were very heterogeneous, statistically, in their populations, interventions and outcomes, and only two meta-analyses within two subgroups were warranted. Data on secondary outcomes were sparse. Cost data were provided on request for three studies (n = 416), were highly variable, and did not address cost-effectiveness. Two studies (n = 455) contained statements about adverse effects and neither reported finding any.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mass media interventions may reduce prejudice, but there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects on discrimination. Very little is known about costs, adverse effects or other outcomes. Our review found few studies in middle- and low-income countries, or with employers or health professionals as the target group, and none targeted at children or adolescents. The findings are limited by the quality of the evidence, which was low for the primary outcomes for discrimination and prejudice, low for adverse effects and very low for costs. More research is required to establish the effects of mass media interventions on discrimination, to better understand which types of mass media intervention work best, to provide evidence about cost-effectiveness, and to fill evidence gaps about types of mass media not covered in this review. Such research should use robust methods, report data more consistently with reporting guidelines and be less reliant on student populations.

The Effect of an Educating versus Normalizing Approach on Treatment Motivation in Patients Presenting with Delusions: An Experimental Investigation with Analogue Patients

Until recently a widespread recommendation for clinicians was not to respond to the content of patients' delusions but to stress at an early time point that the patient has a mental illness (educating approach). An opposed recommendation is to validate the patients' symptoms and normalize them (normalizing approach). This study used an experimental design to compare the impact of these two approaches on treatment motivation (TM). A cover story about a person who develops persecutory delusions was used to guide a sample of 81 healthy participants who served as analogue patients into imagining experiencing delusions. This was followed by a random assignment to either an educating or a normalizing consultation with a fictive clinician. Consultations only differed in content. Finally, we assessed the participants' motivation to accept medication (Medication TM), psychological treatment (Psychological TM), and treatment offered by this particular clinician independent of the kind of treatment (Clinician-related TM). Participants in the normalizing condition showed higher Clinician-related and Psychological TM than those in the educating condition. Medication TM was unaffected by condition. Following our results using a normalizing approach seems to be advisable in a first-contact situation with patients with delusions and favourable to a simple educating approach.