Rehabilitation for adults with severe mental illness and substance use disorders. A clinical trial

Psychosocial Interventions for Individuals With Comorbid Psychosis and Substance Use Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Studies

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Substance use is highly prevalent among people with schizophrenia (SCZ) and related disorders, however, there is no broad-spectrum pharmacotherapy that concurrently addresses both addiction and psychotic symptoms. Psychosocial (PS) interventions, which have yielded promising results in treating psychosis and substance dependence separately, demonstrate potential but have not been systematically evaluated when combined.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PS interventions for individuals with comorbid substance use and psychotic disorders, encompassing SCZ and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). We included relevant studies published from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar through May 2023.

STUDY RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (5176 participants total; approximately 2840 with SSD). Intervention durations ranged from 30 min to 3 years. Meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant pooled PS intervention effect on the main primary outcome, substance use (18 studies; 803 intervention, 733 control participants; standardized mean difference, -0.05 standard deviation [SD]; 95% CI, -0.16, 0.07 SD; I2 = 18%). PS intervention effects on other outcomes were also not statistically significant. Overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, the literature lacks sufficient evidence supporting the use of PS interventions as opposed to alternative therapeutic approaches for significantly improving substance use, symptomatology, or functioning in people with SCZ and related disorders. However, firm conclusions were precluded by low certainty of evidence. Further RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy of PS treatments for people with dual-diagnoses (DD), either alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy.

Co-occurring psychiatric disorders and disparities in buprenorphine utilization in opioid use disorder: An analysis of insurance claims

Background

As the overdose crisis continues in the U.S. and Canada, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment outcomes for people with co-occurring psychiatric disorders are not well characterized. Our objective was to examine the influence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders on buprenorphine initiation and discontinuation.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used multi-state administrative claims data in the U.S. to evaluate rates of buprenorphine initiation (relative to psychosocial treatment without medication) in a cohort of 236,198 people with OUD entering treatment, both with and without co-occurring psychiatric disorders, grouping by psychiatric disorder subtype (mood, psychotic, and anxiety-and-related disorders). Among people initiating buprenorphine, we assessed the influence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders on buprenorphine retention. We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate buprenorphine initiation and Cox regression to estimate time to discontinuation, adjusting for all 3 classes of co-occurring disorders simultaneously and adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results

Buprenorphine initiation occurred in 29.3 % of those with co-occurring anxiety-and-related disorders, compared to 25.9 % and 17.5 % in people with mood and psychotic disorders. Mood (adjusted-risk-ratio[aRR] = 0.82[95 % CI = 0.82-0.83]) and psychotic disorders (aRR = 0.95[0.94-0.96]) were associated with decreased initiation (versus psychosocial treatment), in contrast to greater initiation in the anxiety disorders cohort (aRR = 1.06[1.05-1.06]). We observed an increase in buprenorphine discontinuation associated with mood (adjusted-hazard-ratio[aHR] = 1.20[1.17-1.24]) and anxiety disorders (aHR = 1.12[1.09-1.14]), in contrast to no association between psychotic disorders and buprenorphine discontinuation.

Conclusions

We observed underutilization of buprenorphine among people with co-occurring mood and psychotic disorders, as well as high buprenorphine discontinuation across anxiety, mood, and psychotic disorders.

Psychiatric Comorbidities of Substance Use Disorders: Does Dual Diagnosis Predict Inpatient Detoxification Treatment Outcomes?

Comorbidity of substance use and psychiatric disorders, particularly depressive disorders, are well established. The impact of comorbidity on treatment outcomes, particularly following short-term inpatient detoxification and medical management units, has yet to be fully explored. This study reviewed 456 records of patients voluntarily presenting for medical management of substance misuse in Sydney, Australia. Documented psychiatric comorbidities and primary substance of misuse were extracted and used to predict length of stay, discharge against medical advice and number of readmissions. Our results showed that psychiatric comorbidity did not significantly predict treatment outcomes, although depression was reported in more than half our cohort, along with elevated rates of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety disorders and bipolar affective disorders. Medication non-compliance and primary substance of misuse significantly predicted length of stay and discharge against medical advice. Further research into how specific substances interact and affect specific psychiatric disorders is needed to guide optimal treatment options.

Dropout Rates in Psychosocial Interventions for People With Both Severe Mental Illness and Substance Misuse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, many psychosocial interventions for individual having both a psychotic spectrum disorder and a substance use disorder diagnoses have been developed and studied. However, there is a high dropout rate among this clinical population.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to replicate a previous meta-analysis on the effects of psychosocial treatment for dual disorders, while including and determining the dropout rates in those type of interventions.

METHOD

Based on a Cochrane systematic review conducted in 2019, we conducted a meta-analysis including 40 randomized clinical trials on psychosocial treatment among persons suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorder and substance use disorder.

RESULTS

A dropout rate of 27,2% was obtained. Stimulants use significantly affected dropout rates. Age, gender, diagnosis, alcohol and cannabis abuse, and duration of treatment did not affect dropout rates.

CONCLUSION

The 27,2% rate of dropout from psychosocial treatment highlights the need to engage participants having a dual diagnosis from the start by focusing on therapeutic alliance and motivation for treatment.

A review of research-supported group treatments for drug use disorders

This paper reviews methodologically rigorous studies examining group treatments for interview-diagnosed drug use disorders. A total of 50 studies reporting on the efficacy of group drug use disorder treatments for adults met inclusion criteria. Studies examining group treatment for cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, opioid, mixed substance, and substance use disorder with co-occurring psychiatric conditions are discussed. The current review showed that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) group therapy and contingency management (CM) groups appear to be more effective at reducing cocaine use than treatment as usual (TAU) groups. CM also appeared to be effective at reducing methamphetamine use relative to standard group treatment. Relapse prevention support groups, motivational interviewing, and social support groups were all effective at reducing marijuana use relative to a delayed treatment control. Group therapy or group CBT plus pharmacotherapy are more effective at decreasing opioid use than pharmacotherapy alone. An HIV harm reduction program has also been shown to be effective for reducing illicit opioid use. Effective treatments for mixed substance use disorder include group CBT, CM, and women's recovery group. Behavioral skills group, group behavioral therapy plus CM, Seeking Safety, Dialectical behavior therapy groups, and CM were more effective at decreasing substance use and psychiatric symptoms relative to TAU, but group psychoeducation and group CBT were not. Given how often group formats are utilized to treat drug use disorders, the present review underscores the need to understand the extent to which evidence-based group therapies for drug use disorders are applied in treatment settings.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

Group treatment for substance use disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

From residential programs to outpatient services, group therapy permeates the clinical field of substance misuse. While several group interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs) have demonstrated effectiveness, the existing evidence on group therapy has not been systematically reviewed. The current meta-analysis aims to provide estimates of the efficacy of group therapy for SUDs in adults using rigorous methods.

METHODS

We included studies comparing group psychotherapy to no treatment control groups, individual psychotherapy, medication, self-help groups, and other active treatments applying no specific psychotherapeutic techniques for patients with substance use disorder. The primary outcome was abstinence, and the secondary outcomes were frequency of substance use and symptoms of substance use disorder, anxiety, depression, general psychopathology, and attrition. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO, complemented by a manual search. Random-effects meta-analyses were run separately for different types of control groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. Significant small effects of group therapy were found on abstinence compared to no treatment, individual therapy, and other treatments. Effects on substance use frequency and SUD symptoms were not significant, but significant moderately sized effects emerged for mental state when group therapy was compared to no treatment. There were no differences in abstinence rates between group therapy and control groups. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses and there was no indication of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings represent the best available summary analysis of group therapy for SUDs in adults, however cautious interpretation is warranted given the limitations of the available data.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

Changes in cannabis use among psychotic clients without specialised substance use treatment

The need to address substance use among people with psychosis has been well established. However, treatment studies targeting substance use in this population have reported mixed results. Substance users with psychosis in no or minimal treatment control groups achieve similar reductions in substance use compared to those in more active substance use treatment, suggesting a role for natural recovery from substance use. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the amount of natural recovery from substance use within control groups of treatment studies containing samples of psychotic substance users, with a particular focus on changes in cannabis use. A systematic search was conducted to identify substance use treatment studies. Meta-analyses were performed to quantify reductions in the frequency of substance use in the past 30days. Significant but modest reductions (mean reduction of 0.3-0.4 SD across the time points) in the frequency of substance use were found at 6 to 24months follow up. The current study is the first to quantify changes in substance use in samples enrolled in no treatment or minimal treatment control conditions. These findings highlight the potential role of natural recovery from substance use among individuals with psychosis, although they do not rule out effects of regression to the mean. Additionally, the results provide a baseline from which to estimate likely changes or needed effects sizes in intervention studies. Future research is required to identify the processes underpinning these changes, in order to identify strategies that may better support self-management of substance use in people with psychosis.

Exploring the Relationship Among Posttraumatic Growth, Life Satisfaction, and Happiness Among Korean Individuals With Physical Disabilities

A growing body of empirical evidence has demonstrated that individuals who experience traumatic and stressful life events can experience positive psychological changes as a result of their struggles with adversity, stress, and trauma. The purpose of the current study is to examine the relationship among five domains (e.g., as relating to others, recognition of new possibilities, a feeling of personal strength, and spiritual change) of posttraumatic growth, happiness, and life satisfaction among Korean individuals with physical disabilities. The results of this study show that three factors (i.e., recognition of new possibilities, experience of spiritual growth, and an appreciation of life) served as predictors of life satisfaction, and two factors (i.e., recognition of new possibilities and personal strength) predicted happiness. This result suggests that certain factors of posttraumatic growth can lead to particular health benefits and influence these benefits to varied extents.

Longitudinal Course of Clients With Co-occurring Schizophrenia-Spectrum and Substance Use Disorders in Urban Mental Health Centers: A 7-Year Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

A previous longitudinal study in rural New Hampshire showed that community mental health center clients with co-occurring schizophrenia-spectrum and substance use disorders (SZ/SUD) improved steadily and substantially over 10 years. The current study examined 7 years of prospective clinical and functional outcomes among inner-city Connecticut (CT) community mental health center clients with SZ/SUD.

METHOD

Participants were 150 adults with SZ/SUD, selected for high service needs, in 2 inner-city mental health centers in CT. Initially, all received integrated mental health and substance abuse treatments for at least the first 3 years as part of a clinical trial. Assessments at baseline and yearly over 7 years measured progress toward 6 target clinical and functional outcomes: absence of psychiatric symptoms, remission of substance abuse, independent housing, competitive employment, social contact with non-users of substances, and life satisfaction.

RESULTS

The CT SZ/SUD participants improved significantly on 5 of the 6 main outcomes: absence of psychiatric symptoms (45%-70%), remission of substance use disorders (8%-61%), independent housing (33%-47%), competitive employment (14%-28%), and life satisfaction (35%-53%). Only social contact with nonusers of substances was unimproved (14%-17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many urban community mental health center clients with SZ/SUD and access to integrated treatment improve significantly on clinical, vocational, residential, and life satisfaction outcomes over time, similar to clients with SZ/SUD in rural areas. Thus, the long-term course for people with SZ/SUD is variable but often quite positive.

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of supportive therapy compared with standard care, or other treatments in addition to standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) fixed-effect with 95% CIs. We estimated heterogeneity (I(2) technique) and publication bias. We used GRADE to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Four new trials were added after the 2012 search. The review now includes 24 relevant studies, with 2126 participants. Overall, the evidence was very low quality.We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes of relapse, hospitalisation and general functioning between supportive therapy and standard care.There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (4 RCTs, n = 306, RR 1.82 CI 1.11 to 2.99, very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement in mental state (3 RCTs, n = 194, RR 1.27 CI 1.04 to 1.54, very low quality of evidence) and satisfaction of treatment for the recipient of care (1 RCT, n = 45, RR 3.19 CI 1.01 to 10.7, very low quality of evidence). For this comparison, we found no evidence of significant differences for rate of relapse, leaving the study early and quality of life.When we compared supportive therapy to cognitive behavioural therapy CBT), we again found no significant differences in primary outcomes. There were very limited data to compare supportive therapy with family therapy and psychoeducation, and no studies provided data regarding clinically important change in general functioning, one of our primary outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies where we graded the evidence as very low quality. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

WITHDRAWN: Case management for persons with substance use disorders

The review has been withdrawn from publication because it is out of date and the authors are currently not available for updating it

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

The effectiveness of integrated treatment in patients with substance use disorders co-occurring with anxiety and/or depression--a group randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Integrated Treatment (IT) has proved effective in treating patients with Substance Use Disorders (SUD) co-occurring with severe Mental Disorders (MD), less is known about the effectiveness of IT for patients with SUD co-occurring with less severe MD.The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of IT for patients with SUD co-occurring with anxiety and/or depression on the following parameters:1. The use of substances, as measured by the Alcohol Use Identification Test (AUDIT), the Drug Use Identification Test (DUDIT), and the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI).2. The severity of psychiatric symptoms, as measured by the Symptom Check List 90 r (SCL 90R).3. The client's motivation for changing his/her substance use behaviour, as measured by the Substance Abuse Treatment Scale (SATSr).

METHODS

This is a group randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of IT to treatment as usual in Community Mental Health Centres (CMHCs). Five CMHCs were drawn to the Intervention Group (IG) and four CMHCs to the Control Group (CG). The allocation to treatment conditions was not blinded. New referrals were screened with the AUDIT and the DUDIT. Those who scored above the cut-off level of these instruments were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV 1 and 2. We included patients with anxiety and/or depression together with one or more SUDs.

RESULTS

We included 55 patients in the IG and 21 in the CG. A linear multilevel model was used. Both groups reduced their alcohol and substance use during the trial, while there was no change in psychiatric symptoms in either group. However, the IG had a greater increase in motivation for substance use treatment after 12 months than had the CG with an estimate of 1.76, p = 0.043, CI95% (0.08; 3.44) (adjusted analyses). There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated treatment is effective in increasing the motivation for treatment amongst patients with anxiety and/or depression together with SUD in outpatient clinics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00447733.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update (2013), the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (July 2012), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases. The principal authors conducted two further searches (8 October 2012 and 15 January 2013) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. A separate search for trials of contingency management was completed as this was an additional intervention category for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. For all meta-analyses we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with a total of 3165 participants. Evaluation of long-term integrated care included four RCTs (n = 735). We found no significant differences on loss to treatment (n = 603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.82 to 1.45, low quality of evidence), death by 3 years (n = 421, 2 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.39 to 3.57, low quality of evidence), alcohol use (not in remission at 36 months) (n = 143, 1 RCT, RR 1.15 CI 0.84 to 1.56,low quality of evidence), substance use (n = 85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.63 to 1.25, low quality of evidence), global assessment of functioning (n = 171, 1 RCT, MD 0.7 CI 2.07 to 3.47, low quality of evidence), or general life satisfaction (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD 0.02 higher CI 0.28 to 0.32, moderate quality of evidence).For evaluation of non-integrated intensive case management with usual treatment (4 RCTs, n = 163) we found no statistically significant difference for loss to treatment at 12 months (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.21 CI 0.73 to 1.99, very low quality of evidence).Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual treatment (7 RCTs, total n = 878) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants at 12 months (n = 327, 1 RCT, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.59, low quality of evidence) or for death (n = 493, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.22 to 2.41, low quality of evidence), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n = 119, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.22 to 0.6, low quality of evidence), relapse (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.5 CI 0.24 to 1.04, very low quality of evidence) or global functioning (n = 445, 4 RCTs, MD 1.24 CI 1.86 to 4.34, very low quality of evidence).Cognitive behavioural therapy alone compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 152) showed no significant difference for losses from treatment at 3 months (n = 152, 2 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.44 to 2.86, low quality of evidence). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use at 6 months (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.79 to 2.15, very low quality of evidence) or mental state (n = 105, 1 RCT, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale MD 0.52 CI -0.78 to 1.82, low quality of evidence).We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone compared with usual treatment (8 RCTs, n = 509) in reducing losses to treatment at 6 months (n = 62, 1 RCT, RR 1.71 CI 0.63 to 4.64, very low quality of evidence), although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n = 93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.53 to 0.9). Some differences, favouring treatment, were observed in abstaining from alcohol (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.17 to 0.75, very low quality of evidence) but not other substances (n = 89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.56 to 0.42, very low quality of evidence), and no differences were observed in mental state (n = 30, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.59 to 0.21, very low quality of evidence).We found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n = 94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.44 to 1.1, very low quality of evidence).We found no differences for contingency management compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 206) in numbers lost to treatment at 3 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 1.65 CI 1.18 to 2.31, low quality of evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at 6 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 CI 0.65 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or hospitalisations (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.93, low quality of evidence).We were unable to summarise all findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low or very low due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or poorly reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 32 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another for people to remain in treatment or to reduce substance use or improve mental state in people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

WITHDRAWN: Case management for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Since the 1960s, in many parts of the world, large psychiatric were closed down and people were treated in outpatient clinics, day centres or community mental health centres. Rising readmission rates suggested that this type of community care may be less effective than anticipated. In the 1970s case management arose as a means of co-ordinating the care of severely mentally ill people in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of case management as an approach to caring for severely mentally ill people in the community. Case management was compared against standard care on four main indices: (i) numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services; (ii) extent of psychiatric hospital admissions; (iii) clinical and social outcome; and (iv) costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should be randomised controlled trials that (i) had compared case management to standard community care; and (ii) had involved people with severe mental disorder mainly between the ages of 18-65. Studies of case management were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as 'case' or 'care' management rather than 'Assertive Community Treatment' or 'ACT'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A study was carried out to test the reliability of the inclusion criteria. Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked, any disagreements being resolved by discussion. Odds ratios and the number needed to treat were estimated. Continuous data collected by a measuring instrument was only included if the instrument (i) had been described in a peer-reviewed journal; (ii) was a self-report or had been completed by an independent rater; and (iii) provided a summary score for a broad area of functioning. Normally distributed continuous data were included if means and standard deviations were available. Non-normal data were included if analysed either after transformation or using non-parametric methods. Tests for heterogeneity were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

Case management increased the numbers remaining in contact with services (for case management odds ratio = 0.70; 99%CI 0.50-0.98; n=1210). Case management approximately doubled the numbers admitted to psychiatric hospital (OR 1.84; 99% CI 1.33-2.57; n=1300). Except for a positive finding on compliance, from one study, case management showed no significant advantages over standard care on any psychiatric or social variable. Cost data did not favour case management but insufficient information was available to permit definitive conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Case management ensures that more people remain in contact with psychiatric services (one extra person remains in contact for every 15 people who receive case management), but it also increases hospital admission rates. Present evidence suggests that case management also increases duration of hospital admissions, but this is not certain. Whilst there is some evidence that case management improves compliance, it does not produce clinically significant improvement in mental state, social functioning, or quality of life. There is no evidence that case management improves outcome on any other clinical or social variables. Present evidence suggests that case management increases health care costs, perhaps substantially, although this is not certain. In summary, therefore, case management is an intervention of questionable value, to the extent that it is doubtful whether it should be offered by community psychiatric services. It is hard to see how policy makers who subscribe to an evidence-based approach can justify retaining case management as 'the cornerstone' of community mental health care. Case management is compared to the main alternative approach (ACT) in a forthcoming Cochrane review.

WITHDRAWN: Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) was developed in the early 1970s as a response to the closing down of psychiatric hospitals. ACT is a team-based approach aiming at keeping ill people in contact with services, reducing hospital admissions and improving outcome, especially social functioning and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative to i. standard community care, ii. traditional hospital-based rehabilitation, and iii. case management. For each of the three comparisons the main outcome indices were i. remaining in contact with the psychiatric services, ii. extent of psychiatric hospital admissions, iii. clinical and social outcome and iv. costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1982-1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should i. be randomised controlled trials, ii. have compared ACT to standard community care, hospital-based rehabilitation, or case management and iii. have been carried out on people with severe mental disorder the majority of whom were aged from 18 to 65. Studies of ACT were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as "Assertive Community Treatment" or one of its synonyms. Studies of ACT as an alternative to hospital admission, hospital diversion programmes, for those in crisis, were excluded. The reliability of the inclusion criteria were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three types of outcome data were available: i. categorical data, ii. numerical data based on counts of real life events (count data) and iii. numerical data collected by standardised instruments (scale data). Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked. Peto Odds Ratios and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Numerical count data were extracted twice and cross-checked. Count data could not be combined across studies for technical reasons (the data were skewed) but all relevant observations based on count data were reported in the review. Numerical scale data were subject to a quality assessment. The validity of the quality assessment was itself assessed. Numerical scale data of suitable quality were combined using the standardised mean difference statistic where possible, otherwise the data were reported in the text or 'Other data tables' of the review.

MAIN RESULTS

ACT versus standard community care Those receiving ACT were more likely to remain in contact with services than people receiving standard community care (OR 0.51, 99%CI 0.37-0.70). People allocated to ACT were less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving standard community care (OR 0.59, 99%CI 0.41-0.85) and spent less time in hospital. In terms of clinical and social outcome, significant and robust differences between ACT and standard community care were found on i. accommodation status, ii. employment and iii. patient satisfaction. There were no differences between ACT and control treatments on mental state or social functioning. ACT invariably reduced the cost of hospital care, but did not have a clear cut advantage over standard care when other costs were taken into account.ACT versus hospital-based rehabilitation services Those receiving ACT were no more likely to remain in contact with services than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation, but confidence intervals for the odds ratio were wide. People getting ACT were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation (OR 0.2, 99%CI 0.09-0.46) and spent less time in hospital. Those allocated to ACT were significantly more likely to be living independently (OR (for not living independently) 0.19, 99%CI 0.06-0.54), but there were no other significant and robust differences in clinical or social outcome. There was insufficient data on costs to permit comparison.ACT versus case management There were no data on numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services or on numbers admitted to hospital. People allocated to ACT consistently spent fewer days in hospital than those given case management. There was insufficient data to permit robust comparisons of clinical or social outcome. The cost of hospital care was consistently less for those allocated to ACT, but ACT did not have a clear cut advantage over case management when other costs were taken into account.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACT is a clinically effective approach to managing the care of severely mentally ill people in the community. ACT, if correctly targeted on high users of in-patient care, can substantially reduce the costs of hospital care whilst improving outcome and patient satisfaction. Policy makers, clinicians, and consumers should support the setting up of ACT teams.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.

Treating comorbid substance use disorders in schizophrenia

AIM

To review the literature on pharmacological and psychosocial treatment approaches for people with schizophrenia and comorbid substance use disorder(s) (SUD).

METHOD

Selective literature review.

RESULTS

Despite the high prevalence of comorbid SUD among people with schizophrenia, there is a considerable paucity of rigorously conducted randomized controlled treatment trials. While there is some evidence for clozapine, and for the adjunctive use of agents such as naltrexone for comorbid alcohol dependence, the available literature largely comprises case studies, case series, open label studies and retrospective surveys. In terms of psychosocial approaches, there is reasonable consensus that integrated approaches are most appropriate. Regarding specific aspects of care, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioural therapy and contingency management have an emerging supportive literature, as do family interventions. However, there is no 'one size fits all', and a flexible approach with the ability to apply specific components of care to particular individuals, is required. Group-based therapies and longer-term residential services have an important role for some patients, but further research is required to delineate more clearly which patients will benefit from these strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is growing (albeit limited) evidence that integrated and well articulated interventions that encompass pharmacological and psychosocial parameters can be beneficial for people with schizophrenia and comorbid SUD, there remains a considerable gap in the literature available to inform evidence-based practice.

Schizophrenia, "just the facts" 5. Treatment and prevention. Past, present, and future

The introduction of second-generation antipsychotics and cognitive therapies for schizophrenia over the past two decades generated considerable optimism about possibilities for recovery. To what extent have these developments resulted in better outcomes for affected individuals? What is the current state of our science and how might we address the many unmet needs in the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia? We trace the evolution of various treatments for schizophrenia and summarize current knowledge about available pharmacological and psychosocial treatments. We consider the widely prevalent efficacy-effectiveness gap in the application of available treatments and note the significant variability in individual treatment response and outcome. We outline an individualized treatment approach which emphasizes careful monitoring and collaborative decision-making in the context of ongoing benefit-risk assessment. We note that the evolution of both pharmacological and psychosocial treatments thus far has been based principally on serendipity and intuition. In view of our improved understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of schizophrenia, there is an opportunity to develop prevention strategies and treatments based on this enhanced knowledge. In this context, we discuss potential psychopathological treatment targets and enumerate current pharmacological and psychosocial development efforts directed at them. Considering the stages of schizophrenic illness, we review approaches to prevent progression from the pre-symptomatic high-risk to the prodrome to the initial psychotic phase to chronicity. In view of the heterogeneity of risk factors, we summarize approaches towards targeted prevention. We evaluate the potential contribution of pharmacogenomics and other biological markers in optimizing individual treatment and outcome in the future.

The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychosocial treatment recommendations and summary statements

The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) psychosocial treatment recommendations provide a comprehensive summary of current evidence-based psychosocial treatment interventions for persons with schizophrenia. There have been 2 previous sets of psychosocial treatment recommendations (Lehman AF, Steinwachs DM. Translating research into practice: the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24:1-10 and Lehman AF, Kreyenbuhl J, Buchanan RW, et al. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2003. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:193-217). This article reports the third set of PORT recommendations that includes updated reviews in 7 areas as well as adding 5 new areas of review. Members of the psychosocial Evidence Review Group conducted reviews of the literature in each intervention area and drafted the recommendation or summary statement with supporting discussion. A Psychosocial Advisory Committee was consulted in all aspects of the review, and an expert panel commented on draft recommendations and summary statements. Our review process produced 8 treatment recommendations in the following areas: assertive community treatment, supported employment, cognitive behavioral therapy, family-based services, token economy, skills training, psychosocial interventions for alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychosocial interventions for weight management. Reviews of treatments focused on medication adherence, cognitive remediation, psychosocial treatments for recent onset schizophrenia, and peer support and peer-delivered services indicated that none of these treatment areas yet have enough evidence to merit a treatment recommendation, though each is an emerging area of interest. This update of PORT psychosocial treatment recommendations underscores both the expansion of knowledge regarding psychosocial treatments for persons with schizophrenia at the same time as the limitations in their implementation in clinical practice settings.

Reprint of "Treatment of cannabis use disorders in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders--a systematic review"

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorders (CUD) are prevalent among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), with a range of detrimental effects, e.g. reduced compliance to medication and psychosocial interventions, and increased level of psychotic-dimension symptoms. The aim of this study was to review literature on treatments of CUD in SSD-patients.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.

RESULTS

41 articles were selected, 11 treating cannabis as a separate outcome. Contingency management was only effective while active. Pharmacological interventions appeared effective, but lacked randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Psychosocial interventions, e.g. motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), were ineffective in most studies with cannabis as a separate outcome, but effective in studies that grouped cannabis together with other substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists on treating this form of dual-diagnosis patients. Studies grouping several types of substances as a single outcome may overlook differential effects. Future RCTs should investigate combinations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and contingency management.

Psychosocial treatments for people with co-occurring severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders (dual diagnosis): a review of empirical evidence

Considerable research documents the health consequences of psychosis and co-occurring substance use disorders. Results of randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for persons with dual diagnoses are equivocal but encouraging. Many studies are hampered by small, heterogeneous samples, high attrition rates, short follow-up periods, and unclear description of treatment components. The treatments available for this group of patients (which can be tailored to individual needs) include motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, relapse prevention, case management, and skills training. Regardless of whether services follow integrated or parallel models, they should be well coordinated, take a team approach, be multidisciplinary, have specialist-trained personnel (including 24-hour access), include a range of program types, and provide for long-term follow-up. Interventions for substance reduction may need to be further developed and adapted for people with serious mental illnesses. Further quality trials in this area will contribute to the growing body of data of effective interventions.

Treatment of cannabis use disorders in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorders (CUD) are prevalent among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), with a range of detrimental effects, e.g. reduced compliance to medication and psychosocial interventions, and increased level of psychotic-dimension symptoms. The aim of this study was to review literature on treatments of CUD in SSD-patients.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.

RESULTS

41 articles were selected, 11 treating cannabis as a separate outcome. Contingency management was only effective while active. Pharmacological interventions appeared effective, but lacked randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Psychosocial interventions, e.g. motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), were ineffective in most studies with cannabis as a separate outcome, but effective in studies that grouped cannabis together with other substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists on treating this form of dual-diagnosis patients. Studies grouping several types of substances as a single outcome may overlook differential effects. Future RCTs should investigate combinations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and contingency management.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for substance reduction in people with a serious mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update (2007) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2006) which is based on regular searches of major databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where data were homogeneous. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Evaluation of long-term integrated care included 4 RCTs (total n=735). We found no significant difference on measures of substance use (n=85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.6 to 1.3) or loss to treatment (n=603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.8 to 1.5). For the non-integrated intensive case management trials (4 RCTs, total n=151) we also found no significant difference for loss (n=134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.35 CI 0.8 to 2.2). Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy (3 RCTs, total n=276) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants (n=36, 1 RCT, RR lost to treatment 0.50 CI 0.1 to 5.0) or for relapse (n=36, 1 RCT, RR 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.1), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n=119, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI -0.2 to 0.6). Cognitive behavioural therapy alone (4 trials, total n=260) showed fewer participants lost from treatment (n=260, 4 RCTs, p=0.02, RR 0.61 CI 0.4 to 0.9). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use (n=47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) or on the number of participants using substances (alcohol; n=46, 1 RCT, RR 5.88 CI 0.8 to 44.0, drugs; n=46, 1 RCT, RR 2.02 CI 0.9 to 4.8) and no differences were observed on measures of mental state (n=105, 1 RCT, RR 0.52 CI -0.8 to 1.8). We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone (5 trials, total n=338) in reducing 'lost to evaluation' (n=338, 5 RCTs, RR 0.96 CI 0.6 to 1.5) compared with treatment as usual, although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n=93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 12). Some differences were observed in abstaining from alcohol favouring treatment (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.2 to 0.8, NNT 2 CI 2 to 5), but not other substances (n=89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.6 to 0.4) and no differences were observed in mental state (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -4.20 CI -18.7 to 10.3). Finally, we found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n=94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.4 to 1.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 25 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another to reduce substance use (or improve mental state) by people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results; high drop out rates, varying fidelity of interventions, varying outcome measures, settings and samples and comparison groups may have received higher levels of treatment than standard care. Further studies are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

A systematic review of psychosocial research on psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorders

This report reviews studies of psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring substance use disorder and severe mental illness. We identified 45 controlled studies (22 experimental and 23 quasi-experimental) of psychosocial dual diagnosis interventions through several search strategies. Three types of interventions (group counseling, contingency management, and residential dual diagnosis treatment) show consistent positive effects on substance use disorder, whereas other interventions have significant impacts on other areas of adjustment (e.g., case management enhances community tenure and legal interventions increase treatment participation). Current studies are limited by heterogeneity of interventions, participants, methods, outcomes, and measures. Treatment of co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorder now has a large but heterogeneous evidence base that nevertheless supports several types of interventions. Future research will need to address methodological standardization, longitudinal perspectives, interventions for subgroups and stages, sequenced interventions, and the changing realities of treatment systems.

Case management for persons with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Patients with alcohol and other drug use disorders (AOD) frequently have multiple social, physical, and mental health treatment needs, yet have difficulty accessing community services, including drug abuse treatment. One strategy for linking patients with AOD with relevant services is case management, where a single case manager is responsible for linking patients with multiple relevant services.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of all RCTs on the use of case management for helping drug abusers in or out of treatment. Outcome criteria included successful linkage with other services, illicit drug use outcomes, and a range of related outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - 2006), EMBASE (1980 - 2006), LILACS (1982 - 2006), PsycINFO (1973 - 2006), Biological Abstracts (1982 t- 2000). Reference searching; personal communication; conference abstracts; book chapters on case management.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled studies that compared a specific model of case management with either treatment as usual or another treatment model, included only patients with at least one alcohol or drug related problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of reviewers extracted the data independently . Standardized mean difference was estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we could extract results from 15 studies. Outcome on illicit drug use was reported from 7 studies with 2391 patients. The effect size for illicit drug use was not significant, and small (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.12, confidence interval=-0.09,0.29, p=0.20). Substantial heterogeneity was found (I(2)=69.9%). Linkage to other treatment services was reported in 10 studies with 3132 patients. The effect size for linkage was moderate (SMD=0.42, 95% confidence interval=0.21 to 0.62, p<0.001), but substantial heterogeneity was found (I(2)=85.2%). Moderator analyses suggested that a part of the heterogeneity found in linkage studies could be explained by the presence or absence of a treatment manual for case management. A single, large trial of case management with two arms, showed that case management was superior to psychoeducation and drug counselling in reducing drug use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is current evidence supporting that case management can enhance linkage with other services. However, evidence that case management reduces drug use or produce other beneficial outcome is not conclusive.

Factors affecting outcome in schizophrenia and their relevance for psychopharmacological treatment

A major focus of current treatment research in schizophrenia is the determinants of long-term outcome, including functional outcome and general medical well being, rather than just specific domains of psychopathology such as positive and negative symptoms, mood symptoms, and cognitive impairment. This focus does not negate the importance of the latter issues but sees them as factors contributing to long-term outcome to variable extents. A long-term treatment focus facilitates a more clinically relevant assessment of benefits versus risks of available treatments. For instance, atypical antipsychotic drugs as a group have clear advantages for several important domains of efficacy that may influence long-term outcome, but are also more expensive over the long term. Use of some agents may also result in deleterious physical health consequences as well as large additional costs over the long term owing to metabolic adverse effects. The present paper focuses on several key issues in schizophrenia which are important determinants of long-term outcome in schizophrenia, or influence choice of antipsychotic drugs, or both, including: (i) duration of untreated psychosis; (ii) impact of relapse on long-term outcome; (iii) limited efficacy for specific domains of psychopathology of current treatments; (iv) mortality owing to suicide; and (v) mortality owing to other causes (e.g. cardiovascular disease).

Treatments for patients with dual diagnosis: a review

BACKGROUND

Comorbid substance use and mental illness is prevalent and often results in serious consequences. However, little is known about the efficacy of treatments for patients with dual diagnosis.

METHODS

This paper reviews both the psychosocial and medication treatments for those diagnosed with a substance-related disorder and one of the following disorders: (a) depression, (b) anxiety disorder, (c) schizophrenia, (d) bipolar disorder, (e) severe mental illness, and (f) nonspecific mental illness. We made no restriction of study design to include all published studies, due to the dearth of studies on treatments of patients with dual diagnosis.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were identified (36 randomized-controlled trials; RCT). Limited number of studies, especially RCTs, have been conducted within each comorbid category. This review did not find treatments that had been replicated and consistently showed clear advantages over comparison condition for both substance-related and other psychiatric outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no treatment was identified as efficacious for both psychiatric disorders and substance-related disorder, this review finds: (1) existing efficacious treatments for reducing psychiatric symptoms also tend to work in dual-diagnosis patients, (2) existing efficacious treatments for reducing substance use also decrease substance use in dually diagnosed patients, and (3) the efficacy of integrated treatment is still unclear. This review provides a critique of the current state of the literature, identifies the directions for future research on treatment of dual-diagnosis individuals, and calls for urgent attention by researchers and funding agencies to conduct more and more methodologically rigorous research in this area.

Enhancing validity in co-occurring disorders treatment research

Despite the high prevalence of co-occurring mental health and substance-use disorders, there has been a relative lack of treatment research with this population, and the existing research often has limited validity. This article explores some of the barriers to the conduct of research on promising interventions for substance-abuse treatment for people with co-occurring disorders, using the concepts of external and ecological validity to make recommendations for future investigation. The central recommendation is to move rapidly from efficacy studies to more credible and valid effectiveness studies, in order to facilitate the adoption of evidence-based interventions in routine practice settings.

Is cannabis use a contributory cause of psychosis?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is a contributory cause of schizophreniform psychosis in that it may precipitate psychosis in vulnerable individuals.

METHOD

We reviewed longitudinal studies of adolescents and young adults that examined the relations between self-reported cannabis use and the risk of diagnosis with a psychosis or of reporting psychotic symptoms. We also reviewed studies that controlled for potential confounders, such as other forms of drug use and personal characteristics that predict an increased risk of psychosis. We assessed evidence for the biological plausibility of a contributory causal relation.

RESULTS

Evidence from 6 longitudinal studies in 5 countries shows that regular cannabis use predicts an increased risk of a schizophrenia diagnosis or of reporting symptoms of psychosis. These relations persisted after controlling for confounding variables, such as personal characteristics and other drug use. The relation did not seem to be a result of cannabis use to self-medicate symptoms of psychosis. A contributory causal relation is biologically plausible because psychotic disorders involve disturbances in the dopamine neurotransmitter systems with which the cannabinoid system interacts, as demonstrated by animal studies and one human provocation study.

CONCLUSION

It is most plausible that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia in individuals who are vulnerable because of a personal or family history of schizophrenia.

What are the policy implications of the evidence on cannabis and psychosis?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the implications for mental health services, for health education about the risks of cannabis use, and for public policy toward cannabis use of observational evidence that cannabis use is a contributory cause of psychosis.

METHOD

Using comparative analyses of similar evidence for the harmful effects of alcohol, tobacco, and amphetamine use, we considered the relation between observational evidence and action on cannabis. We examined arguments on the grounds of public health prudence for discouraging cannabis use by young individuals. With the assumption that the relation may be causal, we considered recommendations for policy in mental health services, health education, and public policy toward cannabis.

RESULTS

The observational evidence and biological plausibility of the hypothesis that cannabis is a contributory cause of psychosis is at least as strong as evidence for causal relations between heavy alcohol and amphetamine use and psychosis. On public health grounds, there is a good case for discouraging cannabis use among adolescents and young adults. It remains uncertain how best to discourage use and at whom campaigns to reduce cannabis use should be targeted.

CONCLUSIONS

We should discourage young adults seeking treatment in mental health services from using cannabis and inform them of the probable mental health risks of cannabis use, especially of early and frequent use. We must exercise caution in liberalizing cannabis laws in ways that may increase young individuals' access to cannabis, decrease their age of first use, or increase their frequency of cannabis use. We should consider the feasibility of reducing the availability of high-potency cannabis products.

Integrated treatment for jail recidivists with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders

Jail recidivists with serious mental illness and substance use disorders were treated in an in-custody setting and then randomly assigned to either a high fidelity Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment program (103 participants) or to service as usual (79 participants). Outcomes were tracked an average of 18 months from program entry at the termination of the initial incarceration. A reduction in jail days from baseline to study period was significant for both groups. The pre to post reduction for arrests and total convictions was significant in the experimental group but not the control group. However, during the study period, differences between experimental and control groups in arrests, convictions and jail days were not statistically significant. Experimental participants had lower study period psychiatric inpatient and crisis utilization and greater outpatient utilization than did control group participants. The groups did not differ with regard to total institutional days. Experimental group attrition was relatively high.

The Role of Twelve-Step Approaches in Dual Diagnosis Treatment and Recovery

The authors reviewed the empirical literature concerning the use of twelve-step programs and treatments by patients with co-occurring substance use disorders and other psychiatric disorders. Strong evidence was found that dually diagnosed individuals (DDI), with the possible exception of those with psychotic disorders, attend twelve-step programs at rates comparable to non-DDI. Twelve-step involvement is consistently associated with improved substance use outcomes. Although there have been numerous clinical trials involving twelve step-oriented interventions for DDI, most of the studies suffered from substantial methodological limitations. More work is needed to determine what kinds of twelve-step treatments and programs are effective for various types of patients and elucidate the mechanisms by which these approaches facilitate recovery.

Cannabis use and psychosis

This paper reviews evidence on two hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. The first hypothesis is that heavy cannabis use may cause a "cannabis psychosis"-a psychosis that would not occur in the absence of cannabis use, the symptoms of which are preceded by heavy cannabis use and remit after abstinence. The second hypothesis is that cannabis use may precipitate schizophrenia, or exacerbate its symptoms. Evaluation of these hypotheses requires evidence of an association between cannabis use and psychosis, that is unlikely to be due to chance, in which cannabis use precedes psychosis, and in which we can exclude the hypothesis that the relationship is due to other factors, such as other drug use, or a personal vulnerability to psychosis. There is some clinical support for the first hypothesis. If these disorders exist they seem to be rare, because they require very high doses of THC, the prolonged use of highly potent forms of cannabis, or a pre-existing (but as yet unspecified) vulnerability. There is more support for the second hypothesis, in that a large prospective study has shown a linear relationship between the frequency with which cannabis has been used by age 18 and the risks over the subsequent 15 years of a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether this means that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia, whether it is a form of "self-medication", or whether the association is due to the use of other drugs, such as amphetamines, which heavy cannabis users are more likely to use. There is stronger evidence that cannabis use can exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia. Mental health services should identify patients with schizophrenia who use alcohol, cannabis and other drugs and advise them to abstain or to greatly reduce their drug use.

Caring for clients with dual diagnosis in rural communities in Australia: the experience of mental health professionals

This paper identifies and describes the experiences of 13 rural mental health professionals who care for clients diagnosed with a mental illness and a coexisting alcohol and other drug disorder (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis is a common problem which is often poorly understood and managed by mental health professionals. The effect of excessive substance use on a person's mental well-being can present as a diagnostic challenge as each condition may mask symptoms of the other. The authors utilized a phenomenological approach to discover the experiences of a group of mental health professionals working in rural communities in Victoria, Australia. Caring for clients diagnosed with dual diagnosis was found to be a complex and stressful role that involved high levels of skill and knowledge. Despite the fact that health professionals in rural areas are expected to deliver the most appropriate care to individuals with a dual diagnosis, a number of these rural health professionals have limited preparation and experience in dealing with arising clinical diagnosis issues. Clinicians experience frustration, resentment and powerlessness in their attempt to understand their clients' drug misuse whilst simultaneously endeavouring to provide a quality mental health service.

Cannabis use and psychotic disorders: an update

This paper evaluates three hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis in the light of recent evidence from prospective epidemiological studies. These are that: (1) cannabis use causes a psychotic disorder that would not have occurred in the absence of cannabis use; (2) that cannabis use may precipitate schizophrenia or exacerbate its symptoms; and (3) that cannabis use may exacerbate the symptoms of psychosis. There is limited support for the first hypothesis. As a consequence of recent prospective studies, there is now stronger support for the second hypothesis. Four recent prospective studies in three countries have found relationships between the frequency with which cannabis had been used and the risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia or of reporting psychotic symptoms. These relationships are stronger in people with a history of psychotic symptoms and they have persisted after adjustment for potentially confounding variables. The absence of any change in the incidence of schizophrenia during the three decades in which cannabis use in Australia has increased makes it unlikely that cannabis use can produce psychoses that would not have occurred in its absence. It seems more likely that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals. There is also reasonable evidence for the third hypothesis that cannabis use exacerbates psychosis.

Severely mentally ill consumers' perspectives on drug use

Substance use disorders have serious negative consequences for severely mentally ill (SMI) adults, but many do not receive adequate substance abuse treatment. As part of a larger project on access barriers to substance abuse treatment for SMI clients, this qualitative study examined two potential client-level barriers to treatment: minimization of drug problems and perceived acceptability of drug use to reduce psychiatric symptoms. Open-ended interviews about drug use were conducted with 24 SMI adults with substance use problems. The majority of respondents identified drug use as a major problem in their lives. Respondents were aware of the impact of drugs on psychiatric symptoms, and most believed that the negative effects of drug use outweighed any short-term benefits. Nearly all respondents believed it was not acceptable for SMI adults to use drugs except marijuana. Contrary to findings in the literature that SMI adults deny or minimize drug problems, most respondents acknowledged the seriousness of their drug use, were aware of the negative effects of drug use on their psychiatric symptoms, and endorsed abstinence as the optimal treatment goal. These findings have implications for substance abuse treatment for SMI clients, particularly interventions that emphasize education about drug use as a way to increase motivation for treatment.

Integrated versus non-integrated management and care for clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders: a qualitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a qualitative review of randomised controlled trials in relation to the treatment of adults with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD). In particular, integrated approaches are compared with non-integrated approaches to treatment. Ten articles were identified for inclusion in the review. The findings are equivocal with regard to the superior efficacy of integrated approaches to treatment, although the many limitations of the studies need to be considered in our understanding of this finding. Clearly, this is an extremely challenging client group to engage and maintain in intervention research, and the complexity and variability of the problems render control particularly difficult. The lack of available evidence to support the superiority of integration is discussed in relation to these challenges. Much remains to be investigated with regard to integrated management and care for people with co-occurring and MH/SUD, particularly for specific combinations of dual diagnosis and giving consideration to the level of inter-relatedness between the disorders.

Bipolar disorder and substance abuse

Substance use disorders are overrepresented in individuals with bipolar and bipolar spectrum disorders. Although awareness of this phenomenon has increased over the past 20 years, few empirically based treatment strategies have been developed for this challenging patient population. This review examines the relationship between bipolar and substance use disorders and treatment options that have been studied in this patient population. First, we examine the high prevalence rates of substance use disorders in individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder, the common problems associated with establishing a bipolar disorder diagnosis in individuals who abuse substances, the possible explanations for the frequent coexistence of bipolar and substance use disorders, and the negative effect of substance abuse on the course of and treatment outcomes for bipolar disorder. The review then focuses on treatment approaches for this patient population, including integrated group therapy for co-occurring bipolar and substance use disorders and pharmacotherapies that target both disorders. Finally, we present suggestions for medications that might be tested for their efficacy in treating both disorders in specific subgroups of patients with bipolar and substance use disorders.