Occupational functioning in early non-affective psychosis: the role of attributional biases, symptoms and executive functioning

Study protocol for a pilot high-intensity interval training intervention in inpatient mental health settings: a two-part study using a randomised controlled trial and naturalistic study design

BACKGROUND

Severe mental illnesses (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, are associated with physical health comorbidities and premature mortality. Physical activity and structured exercise have a beneficial impact on cardiometabolic risk and ameliorate mental health symptomology and cognition. This protocol describes a feasibility study for a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) intervention among inpatients with SMI, to improve their physical and mental health.

METHODS

The feasibility study follows a two-part design owing to COVID-19-related adaptations to project design: (a) a non-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 12 weeks of bicycle-based HIIT, delivered twice weekly in a face-to-face, one-to-one setting, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) and (b) a naturalistic study of inpatient HIIT; eligible participants will be invited to two sessions of HIIT per week, delivered by the research team remotely or in person. Additionally, participants in the naturalistic study may use the bike to conduct self-directed sessions of their chosen length and intensity. We will measure the feasibility and acceptability of the HIIT intervention as primary outcomes, alongside secondary and tertiary outcomes evaluating the physical, mental and cognitive effects of HIIT. The study aims to recruit 40 patients to the RCT and 6-8 patients to the naturalistic design.

DISCUSSION

Exercise is a modifiable lifestyle barrier that can reverse cardiometabolic disease risk. If HIIT is found to be feasible and acceptable in inpatients with SMI, there would be scope for large-scale work to evaluate the clinical, cost and implementation effectiveness of HIIT in inpatient mental health settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03959735 . Registered June 22, 2019.

Perspectives on implementing HIIT interventions for service users in inpatient mental health settings: A qualitative study investigating patient, carer and staff attitudes

BACKGROUND

High intensity interval training (HIIT) may have beneficial effects among people living with severe mental illness (SMI), however there remains an absence of information on attitudes of key stakeholders (e.g. family carers, healthcare professionals) towards offering HIIT interventions in psychiatric inpatient settings. This study sought to qualitatively investigate, in inpatients with SMI, carer and staff groups, perspectives on implementing HIIT interventions for patient groups in inpatient settings.

METHODS

Seven focus groups and one individual interview were conducted. These included three focus groups held with inpatients with SMI (n=13), two held with carers (n=15), and two held with healthcare professionals working in inpatient settings (n=11). An additional individual interview was conducted with one patient participant.

RESULTS

Two key themes emerged from the data, across all participants, that reflected the 'Positivity' in the application of HIIT interventions in psychiatric inpatient settings with beliefs that it would help patients feel more relaxed, build their fitness, and provide a break from the monotony of ward environments. The second theme related to 'Implementation concerns', that reflected subthemes about i) patient motivation, ii) patient safety and iii) practical logistical factors, including having access to the right sports clothing and staff availability.

LIMITATIONS

Investigations were limited to one mental health service provider and participants might already be those with an interest in exercise-based interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

HIIT interventions for SMI inpatients were perceived positively by key stakeholders. However, individual and organisational barriers to successful implementation are identified and should be addressed in advance.

Specialised early intervention teams (extended time) for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with FEP and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced, a recent-onset psychosis. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. Evidence suggests that once SEI treatment ends, improvements may not be sustained, bringing uncertainty about the optimal duration of SEI to ensure the best long-term outcomes. Extending SEI has been proposed as a way of providing continued intensive treatment and continuity of care, of usually up to five years, in order to a) sustain the positive initial outcomes of SEI; and b) improve the long-term trajectory of the illness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare extended SEI teams with treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. To compare extended SEI teams with standard SEI teams followed by TAU (standard SEI + TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis and all RCTs comparing extended SEI with standard SEI + TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting usable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs, with a total 780 participants, aged 16 to 35 years. All participants met the criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders or affective psychoses. No trials compared extended SEI with TAU. All three trials randomly allocated people approximately two years into standard SEI to either extended SEI or standard SEI + TAU. The certainty of evidence for outcomes varied from low to very low. Our primary outcomes were recovery and disengagement from mental health services. No trials reported on recovery, and we used remission as a proxy. Three trials reported on remission, with the point estimate suggesting a 13% increase in remission in favour of extended SEI, but this included wide confidence intervals (CIs) and a very uncertain estimate of no benefit (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.31; 3 trials, 780 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials provided data on disengagement from services with evidence that extended SEI care may result in fewer disengagements from mental health treatment (15%) in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (34%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; 2 trials, 380 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in rates of psychiatric hospital admission (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.52; 1 trial, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence), or the number of days spent in a psychiatric hospital (MD -2.70, 95% CI -8.30 to 2.90; 1 trial, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial found uncertain evidence regarding lower global psychotic symptoms in extended SEI in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (MD -1.90, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.52; 1 trial, 156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of extended SEI over standard SEI + TAU resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality, as so few deaths were recorded in trials (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64; 3 trials, 780 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very uncertain evidence suggests that using extended SEI instead of standard SEI + TAU may not improve global functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.76; 2 trials, 560 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias in all three trials for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and other biases. All three trials had high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. For the risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessments and incomplete outcome data there was at least one trial with high or unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be preliminary evidence of benefit from extending SEI team care for treating people experiencing psychosis, with fewer people disengaging from mental health services. Evidence regarding other outcomes was uncertain. The certainty of evidence for the measured outcomes was low or very low. Further, suitably powered studies that use a consistent approach to outcome selection are needed, but with only one further ongoing trial, there is unlikely to be any definitive conclusion for the effectiveness of extended SEI for at least the next few years.

Specialised early intervention teams for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.

OBJECTIVES

To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.

Shame and the psychosis continuum: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Shame is increasingly implicated in the development and maintenance of several psychological problems including psychosis. The aim of the current paper was to review the research literature concerning the relationship between shame and the psychosis continuum, examining the nature and direction of this relationship.

METHOD

Systematic searches of databases PsycINFO, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science (from the earliest available database date until November 2016) were undertaken to identify papers that examined the relationship between shame and psychosis or psychotic experiences.

RESULTS

A total of 20 eligible papers were identified. Risk of bias assessment identified methodological shortcomings across the research in relation to small, unrepresentative samples and failure to control for confounding variables. Narrative synthesis suggested positive associations between shame and paranoia (n = 10, r = .29-.62), shame and psychosis (n = 1, r = .40), and shame and affiliation with voices (n = 1, β = .26), and suggested that shame was greater in those with psychosis compared to controls (n = 4, d = 0.76-1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, several studies provide partial support for the theory that shame is an important factor in relation to psychotic experiences in both clinical and non-clinical populations, particularly paranoia. However, the predominance of cross-sectional designs prevents any conclusions being drawn concerning the temporal nature of associations. Additional research is necessary to further delineate the role of shame in relation to specific psychotic experiences such as voice-hearing. Longitudinal research is particularly needed to help establish the directionality and temporal aspects of effects.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Research indicates moderate-to-strong positive associations between shame and psychotic experiences in the existing literature. The results provide preliminary evidence that shame may play a role in relation to psychosis and, more specifically, paranoia. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to many disparities across the studies reviewed and methodological shortcomings (e.g., small sample sizes). It is not currently possible to determine causality or direction of effect due to the cross-sectional design of all existing studies.

Can high intensity interval training improve health outcomes among people with mental illness? A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis of intervention studies across a range of mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

High intensity interval training (HIIT) may have beneficial effects among people with mental illnesses. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the benefits, safety and adherence of HIIT interventions across all categories of mental illness.

METHODS

Major databases were searched from inception to 18/2/2019 for intervention studies investigating HIIT among people with mental illnesses. Study quality was assessed via the PEDro scale, intervention characteristics were reported using the TIDier and CERT checklists and findings narratively summarised. A preliminary meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

RESULTS

12 intervention studies, (including 7 RCTs), were included. Evidence suggested HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness (5/8 intervention studies,63%), anthropometric variables (3/4,75%), mental health outcomes (9/12, 75%), cardiovascular fitness (5/9,56%), physical fitness (1/1,100%) and motor skills (1/1,100%), compare to pre-training. The preliminary meta-analysis of pre-post changes found HIIT reduced depression severity (Standardised mean difference (SMD):-1.36 [95%CI-1.63;-1.089], p<0.0001) and possibly improved VO2max (SMD:0.18 [95%CI -0.02; 0.37], p = 0.08) in people with depression. HIIT increased High-Density-Lipoprotein (SMD:0.373 [95%CI 0.18; 0.57], p = 0.0002) and possibly reduced general psychopathology (SMD:-1.58 [95%CI -3.35; 0.18], p = 0.08) in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. No acute injuries were reported, mean adherence to HIIT sessions ranged from 64-94%, and dropout ranged from 0--50%.

LIMITATIONS

Results were limited to a small number of low-to-moderate quality intervention studies.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest HIIT may improve a range of physical and mental health outcomes among people with mental illnesses. Nonetheless, high-quality well-powered trials are needed to reaffirm these findings, and future research should address the seemingly high rate of dropout.

A prospective cohort study of community functioning among psychiatric outpatients

The present study analyzed the community functioning among Chinese people with common mental disorders and their relationships with different factors under the framework of Model of Human Occupation. The research team followed up a stratified random sample of 238 patients in three public psychiatric specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong in one year. The patients completed assessments at baseline and 12-month follow-up in four areas of community functioning (i.e., self-care, independent living skills, social skills, and work skills), self-esteem, self-efficacy, physical functioning, behavioral regulation, mental states, family expressed emotion, and perceived social stigma. The data showed that after 12 months, the patients had positive changes in self-care, work skills, and behavioral regulation. Those patients who had higher levels of self-esteem at baseline and reduced their negative reactions to stigma were more likely to improve social skills, while those patients who perceived less discrimination at baseline and enhanced their self-esteem would have a higher likelihood of making improvement in work skills. The findings implied that the rehabilitation services for people with common mental disorders might target on the enhancement of self-esteem and reduction of discrimination experience to facilitate their improvement in social skills and work skills.

Do Family Interventions Improve Outcomes in Early Psychosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Family interventions for psychosis (FIp) are effective in reducing service user relapse and carer distress in people with schizophrenia-spectrum conditions. Several treatment and best practice guidelines recommend FIp for all people with schizophrenia. However, outcome findings in relation to early psychosis groups have been inconsistent. The current paper reports a systematic review and meta-analyses of articles that evaluated FIp in early psychosis with a clearly defined comparison group. A combination of electronic database searches (using PsychINFO, Medline, and CENTRAL), citation searches and hand searches of key journals and reviews was conducted. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from database inception to June 2016 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Seventeen papers from 14 studies met inclusion criteria for review, the overall quality of which was moderate. Meta-analytic synthesis showed that FIp improved service user functioning and reduced the likelihood of relapse by the end of treatment. Psychotic symptoms were significantly reduced in the FIp group at follow up, but this was not evident at end of treatment. In terms of FIp target mechanisms, carers receiving FIp were more likely to shift from high to low expressed emotion and less likely to report patient focused criticism or engage in conflict communication than carers randomized to standard care. Carer burden and well-being were improved by the end of treatment but gains were not sustained at follow up. FIp had no impact on carer emotional over-involvement. The findings indicate that FIp is an effective intervention for early psychosis service users and their relatives. However, further research is required to establish which key therapeutic components of FIp are most effective for whom, in addition to understanding the mechanisms by which FIp might affect positive change.