Psychosocial Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia and Substance Abuse Disorders

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.

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.

Reflecting on the delivery of a structured alcohol and drug group in a medium‐secure forensic unit

Purpose

This review aims to discuss the planning, implementation and evaluation of a 24‐session alcohol and drug group for eight service users, based on the Behavioural Treatment for Substance Abuse in Severe and Persistent Mental Illness Model (BTSAS), delivered by a group of multi‐disciplinary staff in a medium secure forensic setting.

Design/methodology/approach

Evaluation tools were completed pre‐ and post‐group to measure attendee outcomes and perceptions of their group experience.

Findings

The group programme was well received, although adaptations to meet specific medium‐secure needs will be required for future group work.

Practical implications

The development and implementation of the group has raised awareness within the medium‐secure setting, facilitating a less punitive and more collaborative response.

Originality/value

The paper highlights interventions to support the medium‐secure setting to develop a more pragmatic bespoke response to meet alcohol and drug needs.

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.

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.

Rehabilitation and recovery in schizophrenia

The combination of new medications and effective psychosocial rehabilitation interventions has the potential to improve outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia significantly. Patients who have persistent positive symptoms can benefit from cognitive behavior therapy. Impairments in social competence can be addressed with social skills training. Supported employment programs may increase the ability of patients who have schizophrenia to obtain competitive employment. Family psychoeducational approaches, treatments for comorbid substance abuse, and cognitive rehabilitation approaches that enhance or bypass impairments in cognitive functioning are discussed. This article describes current efforts to incorporate these evidence-based principles of rehabilitative medicine into the management of schizophrenia.