Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Vocational Recovery in Early Psychosis: A Quality-Improvement Report

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in children and young people with psychiatric disorders: a systematic review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has demonstrated benefits in adults with various psychiatric disorders, but its clinical utility in children and young people (CYP) remains unclear. This PRISMA systematic review used published and ongoing studies to examine the effects of tDCS on disorder-specific symptoms, mood and neurocognition in CYP with psychiatric disorders. We searched Medline via PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO via OVID, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to December 2022. Eligible studies involved multiple session (i.e., treatment) tDCS in CYP (≤ 25 years old) with psychiatric disorders. Two independent raters assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a custom-built form. Of 33 eligible studies (participant N = 517), the majority (n = 27) reported an improvement in at least one outcome measure of disorder-specific symptoms. Few studies (n = 13) examined tDCS effects on mood and/or neurocognition, but findings were mainly positive. Overall, tDCS was well tolerated with minimal side effects. Of 11 eligible ongoing studies, many are sham-controlled RCTs (n = 9) with better blinding techniques and a larger estimated participant enrolment (M = 79.7; range 15-172) than published studies. Although encouraging, the evidence to date is insufficient to firmly conclude that tDCS can improve clinical symptoms, mood, or cognition in CYP with psychiatric disorders. Ongoing studies appear of improved methodological quality; however, future studies should broaden outcome measures to more comprehensively assess the effects of tDCS and develop dosage guidance (i.e., treatment regimens).

Effects of Goal Management Training on self-efficacy, self-esteem, and quality of life for persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Persons with schizophrenia often show executive dysfunction assessed with both subjective (self-report) and objective (neuropsychological tests) measures. In a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT), subjective executive functioning in everyday life was improved following Goal Management Training (GMT). The aim of the current study is to investigate the potential of GMT to improve secondary well-being outcomes from that RCT, including self-esteem, self-efficacy, and quality of life in persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Since well-being is frequently lower in persons with schizophrenia compared to healthy individuals, further knowledge about well-being as an outcome after cognitive remediation may have implications for clinical treatment. Sixty-five participants were randomly assigned to GMT (n = 31) or a waiting list control condition (n = 34). Assessments were conducted at baseline (T1), immediately after the intervention (T2-5 weeks), and at six-month follow-up (T3). Measures included the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Perceived Quality of Life Scale, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Results were analyzed using a linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures. There were no significant effects of GMT on self-esteem or quality of life. Only the GMT group showed a significant increase in self-efficacy that was most evident at six months follow-up, F(1, 34) = 10.71, p = 0.002, d = 0.71. Improved self-efficacy was found to correlate significantly with a reduction in perceived executive dysfunction in an exploratory post hoc analysis. Our findings demonstrate the potential of GMT in improving self-efficacy in schizophrenia Clinical trial registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03048695.

External context in individual placement and support implementation: a scoping review with abductive thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Context including the external context may considerably affect the adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of evidence-based practices. We investigated external contextual features by conducting a scoping review of empirical research regarding the implementation of an evidence-based psychiatric or mental health vocational rehabilitation service called Individual Placement and Support (IPS).

METHODS

The protocol for the scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework. We used the methodology by Joanna Briggs Institute for conducting the scoping review and reported it according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched 12 databases for research regarding 'Individual Placement and Support' or 'Evidence-Based Supported Employment'. We retained peer-reviewed empirical studies investigating external contextual factors and their impact on IPS implementation outcomes. We extracted data from the eligible articles and conducted descriptive and thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine original research papers met our eligibility requirements and were retained after reviewing 1124 titles and abstracts and 119 full texts. The analysis generated two main themes: (1) external contextual determinants of service delivery and (2) external systems influencing the evidence-to-practice process. The first main theme encompassed policies and laws, financing, and administratively instituted support resources, and organizational arrangements associated with external stakeholders that may facilitate or hinder the local implementation. The second main theme comprised strategies and actions used by different stakeholders to facilitate implementation locally or scale-up efforts at a system level.

DISCUSSION

Our scoping review illustrates the important role that external contextual factors play and how they may facilitate or hinder the implementation and scale-up of the IPS model across mental health services in different countries. Consideration of these factors by decision-makers in mental health and welfare services, planners, providers, and practitioners is likely to facilitate the development of effective strategies for bridging the evidence-practice gap in implementing the EBPs. Finally, the scoping review identified gaps in knowledge and offered suggestions for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework.

Associations between learning principles of cognitive remediation and cognitive and vocational outcomes in early psychosis-an exploratory analysis of RCT data

Background: Most cognitive remediation (CR) programs are based on multiple scientific learning principles. The role of those learning principles in the beneficial effects of CR is poorly understood. A better understanding of such underlying mechanisms is important to further tailor the intervention and to learn about optimal contexts.Method: An explorative secondary analysis was conducted of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effects of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) with and without CR. The present study evaluated how CR learning principles of "massed practice," "errorless learning," "strategy use" and "therapist contribution" (therapist fidelity) were associated with cognitive and vocational outcomes within 26 participants in this RCT who were treatment exposed.Results: Cognitive gains after CR were positively associated with "massed practice" and "errorless learning." Negative associations were found with "strategy use" and "therapist fidelity." No direct relationship was found between CR principles and vocational outcomes.Conclusions: Results tentatively suggest that CR is most effective and efficient with a good balance between sufficient intensity, of more than 200 tasks, and a limited duration of the training up to 20 h, using tasks that remain both challenging and rewarding, being applied in a context that facilitates real-life practice.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.