COllaborative Shared care to IMprove Psychosis Outcome (COSIMPO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Seeking Healing for a Mental Illness: Understanding the Care Experiences of Service Users at a Prayer Camp in Ghana

Human rights abuses in mental health care are a global concern. Addressing the problem requires input from key stakeholders, particularly from people using mental health services. This study explored the experiences of persons with mental illness receiving care in a faith-based setting in Ghana. The study employed a qualitative design, with in-depth interviews (n = 23) and focus groups (n = 18 participants in 3 groups). The constant comparative method of analysis was used to identify themes in participants' descriptions of their experiences. The first three themes identified are consistent with human rights and coercion, and the last two themes related to service users' views on participation in spiritual practices. Themes included: decision-making around care; consent and efficacy of religious healing; experiences with chaining; views around biomedical treatment; participation in religious activities as part of healing and recognition of the need for spiritual healing. It was observed that participants with prior experience of psychiatric treatment were happy about the absence of chaining in psychiatric facilities but strongly disliked the side effects of medications. These findings underscore the need for faith-based institutions to provide care that is consistent with patient preferences, thereby helping to address the resultant human rights abuses.

Collaborative care for mental health in South Africa: a qualitative systematic review

Collaborative care for mental health is a strategy that restructures the roles of health care providers, and sectors outside of health care provision, to encourage a team-based approach in dealing with mental illness. Previous research proposed a collaborative care strategy to make mental health care more accessible and culturally appropriate. This study systematically reviewed the available literature to produce a summary of collaborative care in the context of mental health care in South Africa. More specifically, the aims were to document existing efforts towards collaboration and highlight barriers and challenges associated with collaborative care in mental health care in South Africa. This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. South African studies published in English between 2002 and October 2021 were considered for inclusion. Twenty-five studies with heterogeneous study designs were included in this review and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach. Collaborative care models hold promise for closing the mental health treatment gap and providing culturally appropriate mental health care in South Africa. However, despite progress made, several challenges remain in the implementation of collaborative policies. Four main strategies were identified to improve the implementation of collaborative care models in South Africa. These included (1) redirecting resources and improving infrastructure, (2) formalising roles and relationships and improving leadership, (3) improving communication and supervisory structures, and (4) improving training and education. This review offers valuable recommendations for South African mental health care policy that might also be useful for other resource-constrained countries.

Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.  SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).   SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.  PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).  Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.  For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.  Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.  MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).  Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.  Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.  "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence.   Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);  g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);  e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.   Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and  functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);  d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects.  Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.  PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.  Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);  c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);  c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;  b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.

The Potential Role of Traditional Medicine in the Management of Schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article presents an overview of recent literature examining the place of traditional methods of mental healthcare in the management of schizophrenia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with schizophrenia make up a large proportion of people seeking traditional methods of mental healthcare, and a majority of such users perceive traditional medicine treatment as helpful. Adherence rates to traditional treatment methods among users may be well over 80%. Nevertheless, evidence is currently too weak to inform recommendation of traditional methods as standalone treatments for schizophrenia. Collaboration between traditional medicine practitioners and biomedical mental healthcare providers is feasible and may lead to safer treatments and better outcomes for patients with schizophrenia. Many patients with schizophrenia preferentially use traditional methods of mental healthcare. A collaborative working relationship that includes training and clinical support for traditional medicine providers by biomedical providers is feasible and may help narrow the global treatment gap for schizophrenia.

Effect of collaborative care between traditional and faith healers and primary health-care workers on psychosis outcomes in Nigeria and Ghana (COSIMPO): a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Traditional and faith healers (TFH) provide care to a large number of people with psychosis in many sub-Saharan African countries but they practise outside the formal mental health system. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative shared care model for psychosis delivered by TFH and primary health-care providers (PHCW).

METHODS

In this cluster-randomised trial in Kumasi, Ghana and Ibadan, Nigeria, we randomly allocated clusters (a primary care clinic and neighbouring TFH facilities) 1:1, stratified by size and country, to an intervention group or enhanced care as usual. The intervention included a manualised collaborative shared care delivered by trained TFH and PHCW. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) newly admitted to TFH facilities with active psychotic symptoms (positive and negative syndrome scale [PANSS] score ≥60). The primary outcome, by masked assessments at 6 months, was the difference in psychotic symptom improvement as measured with the PANSS in patients in follow-up at 3 and 6 months. Patients exposure to harmful treatment practices, such as shackling, were also assessed at 3 and 6 months. Care costs were assessed at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-up, and for the entire 6 months of follow-up. This trial was registered with the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial registry, NCT02895269.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2016, and May 3, 2017, 51 clusters were randomly allocated (26 intervention, 25 control) with 307 patients enrolled (166 [54%] in the intervention group and 141 [46%] in the control group). 190 (62%) of participants were men. Baseline mean PANSS score was 107·3 (SD 17·5) for the intervention group and 108·9 (18·3) for the control group. 286 (93%) completed the 6-month follow-up at which the mean total PANSS score for intervention group was 53·4 (19·9) compared with 67·6 (23·3) for the control group (adjusted mean difference -15·01 (95% CI -21·17 to -8·84; 0·0001). Harmful practices decreased from 94 (57%) of 166 patients at baseline to 13 (9%) of 152 at 6 months in the intervention group (-0·48 [-0·60 to -0·37] p<0·001) and from 59 (42%) of 141 patients to 13 (10%) of 134 in the control group (-0·33 [-0·45 to -0·21] p<0·001), with no significant difference between the two groups. Greater reductions in overall care costs were seen in the intervention group than in the control group. At the 6 month assessment, greater reductions in total health service and time costs were seen in the intervention group; however, cumulative costs over this period were higher (US $627 per patient vs $526 in the control group). Five patients in the intervention group had mild extrapyramidal side effects.

INTERPRETATION

A collaborative shared care delivered by TFH and conventional health-care providers for people with psychosis was effective and cost-effective. The model of care offers the prospect of scaling up improved care to this vulnerable population in settings with low resources.

FUNDING

US National Institute of Mental Health.

Partnership for mental health development in Sub-Saharan Africa (PaM-D): a collaborative initiative for research and capacity building

AimsIn low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in general and sub-Sahara African (SSA) countries in particular, there is both a large treatment gap for mental disorders and a relative paucity of empirical evidence about how to fill this gap. This is more so for severe mental disorders, such as psychosis, which impose an additional vulnerability for human rights abuse on its sufferers. A major factor for the lack of evidence is the few numbers of active mental health (MH) researchers on the continent and the distance between the little evidence generated and the policy-making process.

METHODS

The Partnership for Mental Health Development in Africa (PaM-D) aimed to bring together diverse MH stakeholders in SSA, working collaboratively with colleagues from the global north, to create an infrastructure to develop MH research capacity in SSA, advance global MH science by conducting innovative public health-relevant MH research in the region and work to link research to policy development. Participating SSA countries were Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and South Africa. The research component of PaM-D focused on the development and assessment of a collaborative shared care (CSC) program between traditional and faith healers (T&amp;FHs) and biomedical providers for the treatment of psychotic disorders, as a way of improving the outcome of persons suffering from these conditions. The capacity building component aimed to develop research capacity and appreciation of the value of research in a broad range of stakeholders through bespoke workshops and fellowships targeting specific skill-sets as well as mentoring for early career researchers.

RESULTS

In the research component of PaM-D, a series of formative studies were implemented to inform the development of an intervention package consisting of the essential features of a CSC for psychosis implemented by primary care providers and T&amp;FHs. A cluster randomised controlled trial was next designed to test the effectiveness of this package on the outcome of psychosis. In the capacity-building component, 35 early and mid-career researchers participated in the training workshops and several established mentor-mentee relationships with senior PaM-D members. At the end of the funding period, 60 papers have been published and 21 successful grant applications made.

CONCLUSION

The success of PaM-D in energising young researchers and implementing a cutting-edge research program attests to the importance of partnership among researchers in the global south working with those from the north in developing MH research and service in LMIC.

Global mental health and schizophrenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim was to synthesize recent evidence on schizophrenia illness experience and outcomes and models of care in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a plurality of explanatory models for psychosis and increasing evidence that context influences experiences of stigma. People with schizophrenia in LMICs are vulnerable to food insecurity, violence and physical health problems, in addition to unmet needs for mental healthcare. Family support may help to improve outcomes if present, but caregivers may be overwhelmed by the challenges faced. Despite efforts to increase availability, evidence-based care remains inaccessible to many people with schizophrenia. Non-randomized evaluations in South Africa and Mexico indicate that psychosocial support groups for people with schizophrenia and caregivers may be acceptable and useful. Randomized controlled trials in Pakistan and China show that culturally adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy can reduce symptom severity. There is emerging evidence that alternative medicine, such as Tai Chi, may be beneficial, but to date most studies are of low quality. The challenges of biomedical-traditional provider collaborations have been highlighted. Evaluations of integrated mental healthcare in primary care are underway and promise to provide vital information about how to scale-up quality care.

SUMMARY

Acceptable and effective responses to schizophrenia in LMICs should be cognisant of both cultural context and universal concerns. Efforts to enhance the quality of family support should be central to models of care.

Next steps for meeting the needs of people with severe mental illness in low- and middle-income countries

The explicit inclusion of mental health within the Sustainable Development Goals is a welcome development, borne out of powerful advocacy using public health, economic and human rights arguments. As funding comes on line for scale-up of evidence-based mental health care by task-sharing with primary care, it is time to take stock about care for people affected by severe mental illness (SMI). The existing evidence base for task shared care for SMI provides an imperative to get started, but is skewed towards relatively more affluent and urban populations in middle-income countries where specialist mental health professionals provide most of the care. Randomised, controlled trials and rigorous implementation research on task shared service models are underway which will go some way to improving understanding of the quality, safety, effectiveness and acceptability of more widely generalisable care for people with SMI. A sub-group of people with SMI have more complex and long-term needs for care, with a high risk of homelessness, imprisonment and human rights violations as family and social supports become overwhelmed. Case studies from non-governmental organisations provide examples of holistic approaches to rehabilitation, recovery and empowerment of people with SMI, but rigorous comparative studies are needed to identify the most efficient, effective and scalable approaches to care. Health system constraints are emerging as the over-riding barriers to successful task-sharing, highlighting a need to develop and evaluate chronic care models for people with SMI that succeed in reducing premature mortality, improving wellbeing and achieving better social outcomes. Addressing these evidence gaps is essential if task-sharing mental health care is going to deliver on its promise of promoting recovery for the full range of people affected by SMI.