Innovative Reflecting Interview: Effect on High-Utilizing Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Telephone interpersonal counseling treatment for frequent attenders to primary care: Development and piloting

BACKGROUND

Frequent attenders in primary care (FAs) consume a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources and often have depression, anxiety, chronic health issues, and interpersonal problems. Despite extensive medical care, they remain dissatisfied with the care and report no improvement in quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To pilot a Telephone-based Interpersonal Counseling intervention for Frequent Attenders (TIPC-FA) and assess its feasibility and efficacy in reducing symptoms and healthcare utilization.

METHOD

Top 10% of primary care visitors were randomly assigned to TIPC-FA, Telephone Supportive Contact (Support), or Treatment as Usual (TAU). TIPC-FA and Support groups received six telephone sessions over twelve weeks, while the TAU group was interviewed twice. Multilevel regression tested for changes over time, considering patient and counselor variance.

RESULTS

TIPC-FA and Support groups demonstrated reduced depressive symptoms, and the TIPC-FA group showed decreased somatization and anxiety. The TIPC-FA group demonstrated a trend towards less healthcare utilization than the TAU group.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that IPC via telephone outreach is a feasible approach to treating FAs, achieving a reduction in symptoms not seen in other groups. Promising reduction in healthcare utilization in the TIPC-FA group warrants further exploration in larger-scale trials.

Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

BACKGROUND

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform disorders unspecified, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, pain disorder, and alternative somatoform diagnoses proposed in the literature) and MUPS in adults, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list controls, attention placebo, psychological placebo, enhanced or structured care, and other psychological or physical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. We ran an additional search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a cited reference search on the Web of Science. We also searched grey literature, conference proceedings, international trial registers, and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster randomised controlled trials which involved adults primarily diagnosed with a somatoform disorder or an alternative diagnostic concept of MUPS, who were assigned to a non-pharmacological intervention compared with usual care, waiting list controls, attention or psychological placebo, enhanced care, or another psychological or physical therapy intervention, alone or in combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors, working in pairs, conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with another review author. We pooled data from studies addressing the same comparison using standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were severity of somatic symptoms and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies with 2658 randomised participants. All studies assessed the effectiveness of some form of psychological therapy. We found no studies that included physical therapy.Fourteen studies evaluated forms of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); the remainder evaluated behaviour therapies, third-wave CBT (mindfulness), psychodynamic therapies, and integrative therapy. Fifteen included studies compared the studied psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list. Five studies compared the intervention to enhanced or structured care. Only one study compared cognitive behavioural therapy with behaviour therapy.Across the 21 studies, the mean number of sessions ranged from one to 13, over a period of one day to nine months. Duration of follow-up varied between two weeks and 24 months. Participants were recruited from various healthcare settings and the open population. Duration of symptoms, reported by nine studies, was at least several years, suggesting most participants had chronic symptoms at baseline.Due to the nature of the intervention, lack of blinding of participants, therapists, and outcome assessors resulted in a high risk of bias on these items for most studies. Eleven studies (52% of studies) reported a loss to follow-up of more than 20%. For other items, most studies were at low risk of bias. Adverse events were seldom reported.For all studies comparing some form of psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list that could be included in the meta-analysis, the psychological therapy resulted in less severe symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.16; 10 studies, 1081 analysed participants). This effect was considered small to medium; heterogeneity was moderate and overall quality of the evidence was low. Compared with usual care, psychological therapies resulted in a 7% higher proportion of drop-outs during treatment (RR acceptability 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 14 studies, 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Removing one outlier study reduced the difference to 5%. Results for the subgroup of studies comparing CBT with usual care were similar to those in the whole group.Five studies (624 analysed participants) assessed symptom severity comparing some psychological therapy with enhanced care, and found no clear evidence of a difference at end of treatment (pooled SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; considerable heterogeneity; low-quality evidence). Five studies (679 participants) showed that psychological therapies were somewhat less acceptable in terms of drop-outs than enhanced care (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When all psychological therapies included this review were combined they were superior to usual care or waiting list in terms of reduction of symptom severity, but effect sizes were small. As a single treatment, only CBT has been adequately studied to allow tentative conclusions for practice to be drawn. Compared with usual care or waiting list conditions, CBT reduced somatic symptoms, with a small effect and substantial differences in effects between CBT studies. The effects were durable within and after one year of follow-up. Compared with enhanced or structured care, psychological therapies generally were not more effective for most of the outcomes. Compared with enhanced care, CBT was not more effective. The overall quality of evidence contributing to this review was rated low to moderate.The intervention groups reported no major harms. However, as most studies did not describe adverse events as an explicit outcome measure, this result has to be interpreted with caution.An important issue was that all studies in this review included participants who were willing to receive psychological treatment. In daily practice, there is also a substantial proportion of participants not willing to accept psychological treatments for somatoform disorders or MUPS. It is unclear how large this group is and how this influences the relevance of CBT in clinical practice.The number of studies investigating various treatment modalities (other than CBT) needs to be increased; this is especially relevant for studies concerning physical therapies. Future studies should include participants from a variety of age groups; they should also make efforts to blind outcome assessors and to conduct follow-up assessments until at least one year after the end of treatment.

Increasing equity of access to high-quality mental health services in primary care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Evidence-based interventions exist for common mental health problems. However, many people are unable to access effective care because it is not available to them or because interactions with caregivers do not address their needs. Current policy initiatives focus on supply-side factors, with less consideration of demand.

Aim and objectives

Our aim was to increase equity of access to high-quality primary mental health care for underserved groups. Our objectives were to clarify the mental health needs of people from underserved groups; identify relevant evidence-based services and barriers to, and facilitators of, access to such services; develop and evaluate interventions that are acceptable to underserved groups; establish effective dissemination strategies; and begin to integrate effective and acceptable interventions into primary care.

Methods and results

Examination of evidence from seven sources brought forward a better understanding of dimensions of access, including how people from underserved groups formulate (mental) health problems and the factors limiting access to existing psychosocial interventions. This informed a multifaceted model with three elements to improve access: community engagement, primary care quality and tailored psychosocial interventions. Using a quasi-experimental design with a no-intervention comparator for each element, we tested the model in four disadvantaged localities, focusing on older people and minority ethnic populations. Community engagement involved information gathering, community champions and focus groups, and a community working group. There was strong engagement with third-sector organisations and variable engagement with health practitioners and commissioners. Outputs included innovative ways to improve health literacy. With regard to primary care, we offered an interactive training package to 8 of 16 practices, including knowledge transfer, systems review and active linking, and seven agreed to participate. Ethnographic observation identified complexity in the role of receptionists in negotiating access. Engagement was facilitated by prior knowledge, the presence of a practice champion and a sense of coproduction of the training. We developed a culturally sensitive well-being intervention with individual, group and signposting elements and tested its feasibility and acceptability for ethnic minority and older people in an exploratory randomised trial. We recruited 57 patients (57% of target) with high levels of unmet need, mainly through general practitioners (GPs). Although recruitment was problematic, qualitative data suggested that patients found the content and delivery of the intervention acceptable. Quantitative analysis suggested that patients in groups receiving the well-being intervention improved compared with the group receiving usual care. The combined effects of the model included enhanced awareness of the psychosocial intervention among community organisations and increased referral by GPs. Primary care practitioners valued community information gathering and access to the Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care (AMP) psychosocial intervention. We consequently initiated educational, policy and service developments, including a dedicated website.

Conclusions

Further research is needed to test the generalisability of our model. Mental health expertise exists in communities but needs to be nurtured. Primary care is one point of access to high-quality mental health care. Psychosocial interventions can be adapted to meet the needs of underserved groups. A multilevel intervention to increase access to high-quality mental health care in primary care can be greater than the sum of its parts.

Study registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68572159.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.