Service use and costs of home-based versus hospital-based care for people with serious mental illness

Protocol for the development of a repository of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials conducted in adult care homes (the Virtual International Care Homes Trials Archive (VICHTA))

Background

Approximately 418,000 people live in care homes in the UK, yet accessible, robust data on care home populations and organisation are lacking. This hampers our ability to plan, allocate resources or prevent risk. Large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care homes offer a potential solution. The value of detailed data on residents’ demographics, outcomes and contextual information captured in RCTs has yet to be fully realised. Irrespective of the intervention tested, much of the trial data collected overlaps in terms of structured assessments and descriptive information. Given the time and costs required to prospectively collect data in these populations, pooling anonymised RCT data into a structured repository offers benefit; secondary analyses of pooled RCT data can improve understanding of this under-researched population and enhance the future trial design. This protocol describes the creation of a project-specific repository of individual participant data (IPD) from trials conducted in care homes and subsequent expansion into a legacy dataset for wider use, to address the need for accurate, high-quality IPD on this vulnerable population.

Methods

Informed by scoping of relevant literature, the principal investigators of RCTs conducted in adult care homes in the UK since 2010 will be invited to contribute trial IPD. Contributing trialists will form a Steering Committee who will oversee data sharing and remain gatekeepers of their own trial’s data. IPD will be cleaned and standardised in consultation with the Steering Committee for accuracy. Planned analyses include a comparison of pooled IPD with point estimates from administrative sources, to assess generalisability of RCT data to the wider care home population. We will also identify key resident characteristics and outcomes from within the trial repository, which will inform the development of a national minimum dataset for care homes. Following project completion, management will migrate to the Virtual Trials Archives, forming a legacy dataset which will be expanded to include international RCTs, and will be accessible to the wider research community for analyses.

Discussion

Analysis of pooled IPD has the potential to inform and direct future practice, research and policy at low cost, enhancing the value of existing data and reducing research waste. We aim to create a permanent archive for care home trial data and welcome the contribution of emerging trial datasets.

Cost-effectiveness in the treatment of schizophrenia

This paper discusses the need for a health economics perspective and some of the central methodological issues raised by economic appraisals, including cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. It illustrates how cost-effectiveness studies can inform policy and practice decisions concerning the treatment of schizophrenia, focusing on five generic evaluation questions commonly raised. Examples are drawn from recent and current UK research.

Programmes that bring mental health services to primary care populations in the international setting

The last decade has witnessed an exponential growth of evidence-based care packages for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders (MNS) aimed at primary care populations; however, few have been taken to scale. Several barriers to successful integration and scale-up, such as low acceptability, poor clinical engagement process, lack of targeted resources, and poor stakeholder and policy support have been cited. This review describes and highlights common features of some of the promising programmes that deliver mental health services through primary health clinics, communities, and digital platforms, with an emphasis on those that show some evidence of complete or partial scale-up. Three distinct overarching themes and initiatives are discussed in relation to the above; primary health facilities, community (outside of primary healthcare), and digital/internet-based platforms, with a focus on how the three may interact synergistically to enhance successful integration and scale-up.

Multidisciplinary team functioning and decision making within forensic mental health

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the operation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings within a forensic hospital in England, UK.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Mixed methods, including qualitative face to face interviews with professionals and service users, video observations of MDT meetings and documentary analysis. Data were collected from 142 staff and 30 service users who consented to take part in the research and analysed using the constant comparison technique of grounded theory and ethnography.

FINDINGS

Decisions taken within MDT meetings are unequally shaped by the professional and personal values and assumptions of those involved, as well as by the power dynamics linked to the knowledge and responsibility of each member of the team. Service users' involvement is marginalised. This is linked to a longstanding tradition of psychiatric paternalism in mental health care.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Future research should explore the nuances of interactions between MDT professionals and service users during the meetings, the language used and the approach taken by professionals to enable/empower service user to be actively involved.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clear aims, responsibilities and implementation actions are a pre-requisite to effective MDT working. There is a need to give service users greater responsibility and power regarding their care.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

While direct (video) observations were very difficult to achieve in secure settings, they enabled unmediated access to how people conducted themselves rather than having to rely only on their subjective accounts (from the interviews).

Observations from community care for serious mental illness during a controlled study

A controlled study of community care in serious mental illness (SMI) was carried out. Patients with SMI were randomised to have hospital care or be looked after by a community psychiatric care team in a Daily Living Programme (DIP). The day-to-day work of a clinical team with the difficulties encountered in delivering community psychiatric care in an inner city is described. There were seven deaths from self-harm during the 45-month study. One DIP patient committed homicide. An ordeal by media following this and the suicides are described. Lessons learnt include the need for the community care team to be responsible for discharge from any in-patient phases and for attention to team morale, especially during adversity, and to time spent working under pressure.

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.

A Review of Economic Evaluations of Community Mental Health Care

The authors review the methodology and findings of economic evaluations of 42 community mental health care programs reported in the English-language literature between 1979 and 2003. There were three substantial methodological problems in the literature: costs were often not completely specified, the quality of econometric analysis was often low, and most evaluations failed to integrate cost and health outcome information. Well-conducted research shows that care in the community dominates hospital in-patient care, achieving better outcomes at lower or equal cost. It is less clear what types of community programs are most cost-effective. Future research should focus on identifying which types of community care are most cost effective and at what level of intensity they are most effective.

Experimental Studies of the Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT)

The effectiveness of the Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) versus standard inpatient/outpatient treatment was investigated through a meta-analysis. The study included 19 peer-reviewed published articles describing controlled, randomized experiments comparing PACT to standard treatment of individuals with severe mental illness. Treatment was found to have a significant relationship with effectiveness on each of the following six indicators: number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, social functioning, symptomatology, patient satisfaction, and cost. The use of PACT was associated with fewer admissions, shorter length of stay, higher social functioning, lower symptomatology, greater patient satisfaction, and lower cost. These findings were challenged, however, by the confounding effect of attrition and the small amount of total variance explained in the effectiveness indicators by the PACT intervention. Future replication studies of PACT using larger sample sizes and standardized measures of benefits and costs appear necessary to justify major shifts in mental health and vocational rehabilitation services and funding policies.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis-intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of crisis-intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode compared to the standard care they would normally receive. If possible, to compare the effects of mobile crisis teams visiting patients' homes with crisis units based in home-like residential houses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials. There is no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. This search was undertaken in 1998 and then updated 2003, 2006, 2010 and September 29, 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis-intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses that met our inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The update search September 2014 found no further new studies for inclusion, the number of studies included in this review remains eight with a total of 1144 participants. Our main outcomes of interest are hospital use, global state, mental state, quality of life, participant satisfaction and family burden. With the exception of mental state, it was not possible to pool data for these outcomes.Crisis intervention may reduce repeat admissions to hospital (excluding index admissions) at six months (1 RCT, n = 369, RR 0.75 CI 0.50 to 1.13, high quality evidence), but does appear to reduce family burden (at six months: 1 RCT, n = 120, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, low quality evidence), improve mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) three months: 2 RCTs, n = 248, MD -4.03 CI -8.18 to 0.12, low quality evidence), and improve global state (Global Assessment Scale (GAS) 20 months; 1 RCT, n = 142, MD 5.70, -0.26 to 11.66, moderate quality evidence). Participants in the crisis-intervention group were more satisfied with their care 20 months after crisis (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8): 1 RCT, n = 137, MD 5.40 CI 3.91 to 6.89, moderate quality evidence). However, quality of life scores at six months were similar between treatment groups (Manchester Short Assessment of quality of life (MANSA); 1 RCT, n = 226, MD -1.50 CI -5.15 to 2.15, low quality evidence). Favourable results for crisis intervention were also found for leaving the study early and family satisfaction. No differences in death rates were found. Some studies suggested crisis intervention to be more cost-effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. We identified no data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Care based on crisis-intervention principles, with or without an ongoing homecare package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. However only eight small studies with unclear blinding, reporting and attrition bias could be included and evidence for the main outcomes of interest is low to moderate quality. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

Effects of Home Visit Intervention on Re-hospitalization Rates in Psychiatric Patients

To examine the home visit intervention (HoVI) effects on the re-hospitalization rate and medical costs in patients with schizophrenia or other psychiatric disorders. The subjects who received more than 3 HoVIs were defined as the HoVI group, whereas the subjects who received equal to or less than 3 HoVIs were defined as the HoVI < 4 group; the subjects who had never received an HoVI were defined as the non-HoVI group. Differences in the re-hospitalization rates and National Health Insurance (NHI) costs among the three groups were examined. The re-hospitalization rate of the HoVI group was significantly lower than that of the non-HoVI group. The hospitalization days and the NHI costs of the HoVI group were also lower than those of the non-HoVI group. However, the HoVI < 4 group was not different than the non-HoVI group regarding the re-hospitalization rate or the hospitalization days. The re-hospitalization rate was significantly higher before compared with after the HoVIs. The NHI costs were significantly higher before compared with after the HoVIs. HoVIs (More than 3 HoVIs) produced a lower re-hospitalization rate, number of hospitalization days, and NHI costs in patients who received care through the Home Visit. Project to strengthen the Community Rehabilitation Program.

Social skills programmes for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Social skills programmes (SSP) are treatment strategies aimed at enhancing the social performance and reducing the distress and difficulty experienced by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and can be incorporated as part of the rehabilitation package for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to investigate the effects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2006 and December 2011) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.A further search for studies has been conducted by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group in 2015, 37 citations have been found and are currently being assessed by review authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials for social skills programmes versus standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 randomised trials (975 participants). These evaluated social skills programmes versus standard care, or discussion group. We found evidence in favour of social skills programmes compared to standard care on all measures of social functioning. We also found that rates of relapse and rehospitalisation were lower for social skills compared to standard care (relapse: 2 RCTs, n = 263, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.79, very low quality evidence), (rehospitalisation: 1 RCT, n = 143, RR 0.53 CI 0.30 to 0.93, very low quality evidence) and participants' mental state results (1 RCT, n = 91, MD -4.01 CI -7.52 to -0.50, very low quality evidence) were better in the group receiving social skill programmes. Global state was measured in one trial by numbers not experiencing a clinical improvement, results favoured social skills (1 RCT, n = 67, RR 0.29 CI 0.12 to 0.68, very low quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved in the social skills programme compared to standard care (1 RCT, n = 112, MD -7.60 CI -12.18 to -3.02, very low quality evidence). However, when social skills programmes were compared to a discussion group control, we found no significant differences in the participants social functioning, relapse rates, mental state or quality of life, again the quality of evidence for these outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to standard care, social skills training may improve the social skills of people with schizophrenia and reduce relapse rates, but at present, the evidence is very limited with data rated as very low quality. When social skills training was compared to discussion there was no difference on patients outcomes. Cultural differences might limit the applicability of the current results, as most reported studies were conducted in China. Whether social skills training can improve social functioning of people with schizophrenia in different settings remains unclear and should be investigated in a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Home-based treatment in Monaghan: the first two years

OBJECTIVES

To describe a home-based treatment (HBT) service. To profile the patient population using HBT. To determine why HBT was used and to record disposal.

METHOD

All patients treated by HBT during the first two years of this new service were identified from the HBT logbook. A checklist recording demographic, diagnostic, presenting complaint data and details of HBT contact was used to analyse the patients' charts. A statistical package JMP was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients (275 episodes) were treated using HBT. These were 101 (49.1 %) males and 105 (50.9%) females. Of these, 89 (43.2%) were single. Forty-eight (19.4%) lived alone and 53 (25.7%) were unemployed. The most common presenting complaint was severe depression (39.3%). A depressive disorder was the most frequent diagnosis (28.7%). Twenty six (13%) episodes of HBT ended in admission. One hundred and eighty five (67.3%) were referred to outpatients and 26 (9.5%) were discharged to the GP.

CONCLUSIONS

Home-based treatment is feasible for a wide range of patients with an array of presenting complaints. This model of service delivery is viable in a rural setting. Admission will still be required for some patients. Further work is needed to examine its sustainability and its generalisability to other Irish settings.

An economic evaluation of inpatient treatment versus day hospital care for psychiatric patients

Objectives: To provide a methodology for the examination of costs and clinical outcomes in two distinct care settings for psychiatric patients inpatient and day hospitals. The major emphasis is on the relationship between costs and outcomes in the two care regimes.

Method: The study is a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. People living in Sector B catchment area in the Mid-Western Health Board who were admitted to inpatient care, or treated as day hospital patients, between June 1st 1994 -February 28th 1995 are eligible for inclusion in the study. Information on resource use and clinical outcome is available for 92 of these patients.

Results: The average weekly cost of care for mentally ill patients in the inpatient setting is over twice the level of the cost of care for people attending the day hospital facility. Pay costs and hotel costs are higher in the inpatient facility. Day hospital care is also more cost-effective than inpatient care, when account is taken of the relationship between cost and clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: The study supports the general literature view of the superiority of community care settings for certain categories of mentally ill people. However, the absence of randomisation in the study, incomplete data, and the retrospective nature of the analysis suggests that caution is needed in the interpretation of the results.

Preliminary outcome study on assertive community treatment in Japan

AIMS

The beneficial effects of assertive community treatment (ACT), which has been widely acclaimed as being successful in several foreign countries, must also be objectively evaluated with respect to the transition from inpatient to community-based mental health treatment in Japan. This was the first study that examined effects of the ACT program in Japan using pre/post design data of the pilot trial of the ACT program in Japan project.

METHODS

The study included 41 subjects hospitalized at Kohnodai Hospital, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry between May 2003 and April 2004 for severe mental illness and who met inclusion criteria for entry regarding age, diagnosis, residence, utilization of mental health services, social adjustment, and ability to function in daily activities. All subjects provided informed consent for study participation and were followed for 1 year after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Comparison of the number of days and frequency of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and frequency of emergency psychiatric visits between the 1-year period before hospitalization and 1-year period after hospital discharge showed a significant decrease in number of days and frequency of hospitalization. Comparison at 1 year after discharge with baseline showed no change in satisfaction with overall quality of life or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores, but the Global Assessment of Functioning score significantly increased, and the antipsychotic dose (chlorpromazine equivalent) significantly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Despite some limitations in methodology and conclusions, this study suggests that ACT enables persons with severe mental illness to live for longer periods in the community, without worsening of symptoms, decreased social function, or deterioration in quality of life.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of crisis intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared with 'standard care'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the 1998, 2003 and 2006 searches with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who left early from a trial had no improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Three new studies have been found since the last review in 2006 to add to the five studies already included in this review. None of the previously included studies investigated crisis intervention alone; all used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. However, one of the new studies focuses purely on crisis intervention as provided by Crisis Resolution Home Teams within the UK; the two other new studies investigated crisis houses i.e. residential alternatives to hospitalisation providing home-like environments.Crisis intervention appears to reduce repeat admissions to hospital after the initial 'index' crises investigated in the included studies, this was particularly so for mobile crisis teams supporting patients in their own homes.Crisis intervention reduces the number of people leaving the study early, reduces family burden, is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families and at three months after crisis, mental state is superior to standard care. We found no differences in death outcomes. Some studies found crisis interventions to be more cost effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Care based on crisis intervention principles, with or without an ongoing home care package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

The interplay of outpatient services and psychiatric hospitalization among Medicaid-enrolled children with autism spectrum disorders

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether increased provision of community-based services is associated with decreased psychiatric hospitalizations among children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using discrete-time logistic regression to examine the association of service use in the preceding 60 days with the risk of hospitalization.

SETTING

The Medicaid-reimbursed health care system in the continental United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicaid-enrolled children with an ASD diagnosis in 2004 (N = 28 428).

MAIN EXPOSURES

Use of respite care and therapeutic services, based on procedure codes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospitalizations associated with a diagnosis of ASD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes 299.0, 299.8, and 299.9).

RESULTS

Each $1000 increase in spending on respite care during the preceding 60 days resulted in an 8% decrease in the odds of hospitalization in adjusted analysis. Use of therapeutic services was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Respite care is not universally available through Medicaid. It may represent a critical type of service for supporting families in addressing challenging child behaviors. States should increase the availability of respite care for Medicaid-enrolled children with ASDs. The lack of association between therapeutic services and hospitalization raises concerns regarding the effectiveness of these services.

Life skills programmes for chronic mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Most people with schizophrenia have a cyclical pattern of illness characterised by remission and relapses. The illness can reduce the ability of self-care and functioning and can lead to the illness becoming disabling. Life skills programmes, emphasising the needs associated with independent functioning, are often a part of the rehabilitation process. These programmes have been developed to enhance independent living and quality of life for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of life skills programmes compared with standard care or other comparable therapies for people with chronic mental health problems.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2010). We supplemented this process with handsearching and scrutiny of references. We inspected references of all included studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials for life skills programmes versus other comparable therapies or standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses.

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. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised controlled trials with a total of 483 participants. These evaluated life skills programmes versus standard care, or support group. We found no significant difference in life skills performance between people given life skills training and standard care (1 RCT, n = 32, MD -1.10; 95% CI -7.82 to 5.62). Life skills training did not improve or worsen study retention (5 RCTs, n = 345, RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.40 to 3.36). We found no significant difference in PANSS positive, negative or total scores between life skills intervention and standard care. We found quality of life scores to be equivocal between participants given life skills training (1 RCT, n = 32, MD -0.02; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03) and standard care. Life skills compared with support groups also did not reveal any significant differences in PANSS scores, quality of life, or social performance skills (1 RCT, n = 158, MD -0.90; 95% CI -3.39 to 1.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no good evidence to suggest life skills programmes are effective for people with chronic mental illnesses. More robust data are needed from studies that are adequately powered to determine whether life skills training is beneficial for people with chronic mental health problems.

Evaluating costs of mental illness in Italy. The development of a methodology and possible applications

Scopo - Il presente lavoro, oltre a fare il punto sui più recenti sviluppi della valutazione economica degli interventi effettuati nel settore della salute mentale, propone una metodologia per la valutazione dei costi, applicable nella situazione assistenziale italiana, messa a punto tenendo conto degli sviluppi suddetti. Metodo e risultati - I presupposti per realizzare questo tipo di valutazione sono l'identificazione dei servizi sanitari e sociali offerti ai pazienti con disturbi psichici, la raccolta di dati sull'utilizzazione dei servizi sanitari (costi diretti) e sull'uso di altri servizi e risorse all'interno del sistema socio-economico (costi indiretti) e l'assegnazione di un valore monetario a tali costi. È stato quindi realizzato un elenco dettagliato degli interventi effettuati e delle attività svolte nei Servizi Psichiatrici Territoriali italiani, con particolare riferimento al Servizio di Verona-Sud. Di ciascuno/a di essi è stato stimato il costo (Lista dei Costi Unitari o LICU). Si è tenuto conto, inoltre, degli altri servizi socio-sanitari, pubblici e privati, disponibili sul territorio, degli interventi delle Forze dell'ordine, delle associazioni di volontariato e dei gruppi di self-help. In questo articolo vengono descritte, in dettaglio, le procedure che hanno portato alia quantificazione dei costi per tre di queste attività (le degenze in SPDC, le visite ambulatoriali ed i gruppi socio-riabilitativi). È stata inoltre sviluppata un'intervista (ICAP) per raccogliere i dati sull'utilizzazione dei servizi e sulle condizioni socio-economiche degli utenti. Per verificarne l'applicabilità, le eventuali difficoltà di comprensione e la durata di somministrazione, l'ICAP è stata testata in cinque pazienti. Conclusioni - Uno sviluppo particolarmente interessante ci sembra quello di utilizzare su vasta scala PICAP e la LICU, allo scopo di realizzare studi epidemiologically-based e poter predire ed analizzare i costi in relazione a variabili socio-demografiche, alia diagnosi, alia storia psichiatrica precedente ecc. È necessario sottolineare l'importanza, per le politiche e la pratica sanitaria, di un'analisi combinata di costi, bisogni ed esito (outcome). Una ricerca di questo tipo è attualmente in corso a Verona-Sud.

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.

The economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation of mental health services: lessons from a systematic review of European experience

Many European mental health systems are undergoing change as community-centred care replaces large-scale institutions. We review empirical evidence from three countries (UK, Germany, Italy) that have made good progress with this rebalancing of care. We focus particularly on the economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation. A systematic literature review was conducted using a broad search strategy in accordance with established guidelines. We searched the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Health Management Information Consortium, British Nursing Index and PUBMED/Medline to 2008. The on-line search was supplemented by advice and assistance from contacts with government departments, European Commission, professional networks and known local experts. Community-based models of care are not inherently more costly than institutions, once account is taken of individuals' needs and the quality of care. New community-based care arrangements could be more expensive than long-stay hospital care but may still be seen as more cost-effective because, when properly set up and managed, they deliver better outcomes. Understanding the economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation is fundamental to success. Local stakeholders and budget controllers need to be aware of the underlying policy and operational plan. Joint planning and commissioning or devolving certain powers and responsibilities to care managers may aid development of effective and cost-effective care. People's needs, preferences and circumstances vary, and so their service requirements and support costs also vary, opening up the possibility for purposive targeting of services on needs to improve the ability of a care system to improve well-being from constrained resources. As the institutional/community balance shifts, strategic planning should also ensure that the new care arrangements address the specific contexts of different patient groups. Decision-makers have to plan a dynamic community-based system to match the needs of people moving from institutions, and must take the long view.

Social skills programmes for schizophrenia

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The primary objective is to investigate the effects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia.

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.

Life skills programmes for chronic mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Most people with schizophrenia have a cyclical pattern of illness characterised by remission and relapses. The illness can reduce the ability of self-care and functioning and can lead to the illness becoming chronic and disabling. Rehabilitation is one of the important parts of treatments. Life skills programmes, emphasising the needs associated with independent functioning, are often a part of the rehabilitation process. These programmes, therefore, have been developed to enhance independent living and the quality of life for people with schizophrenia living in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of life skills programmes with standard care or other comparable therapies for people with chronic mental health problems.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Hand searches and scrutiny of references supplemented this process. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials for life skills programmes versus other comparable therapies or standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses.

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 appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials with a total of 318 participants. These evaluated life skills programmes versus standard care, or support group. We found no significant difference in life skills performance between people given life skills training and standard care (Patterson 2003, n=32, WMD -1.10 CI -7.8 to 5.6). Life skills training did not improve or worsen study retention (n=60, 2 RCTs, RR 1.16 CI 0.4 to 3.4). We found no significant difference in PANSS positive, negative or total scores between life skills intervention and standard care. Depression scores (HAM-D) did not reveal any significant difference between groups (Patterson 2003, n=32, WMD -0.70 CI -4.1 to 2.7). We found quality of life scores to be equivocal between participants given life skills training (Patterson 2003, n=32, WMD -0.02 CI -0.1 to 0.03) and standard care. Life skills compared with support groups also did not reveal any significant differences in PANSS scores, quality of life, or social performance skills (Patterson 2006, n=158, WMD -0.90 CI -3.4 to 1.6).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no good evidence to suggest life skills programmes are effective for people with chronic mental illnesses. More robust data are needed from studies that are adequately powered to determine whether life skills training is beneficial for people with chronic mental health problems.

Costs of schizophrenia during 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To explore the direct and indirect costs in a cohort of 225 risperidone-treated patients with schizophrenia followed up annually during 5 years.

METHOD

Data on costs for medication, hospitalization, sheltered living and productivity losses, as well as degree of social isolation, were collected.

RESULTS

The direct costs were dominated by hospitalization and sheltered living expenses, while drug costs only represented 7% of the direct costs. Indirect costs represented 43% of the total costs during the 5 years. About 12% worked full-time, and 12% worked part-time, implying large productivity losses. As a consequence of the national mental health care reform, a substantial shift of costs from hospital care to sheltered living took place on the national level, but the reduction of hospital days for the study patients over time was much larger suggesting that the switch from first to second generation compounds was therapeutically successful. A high degree of social isolation was seen, with more than 20% being completely without social contacts and 30% seeing friends/relatives less often than once a week.

CONCLUSION

The economic costs of schizophrenia are high and driven by the need for assisted living and hospitalizations, together with productivity losses. In addition, the intangible costs, such as social contacts, are also high.

Community mental health teams (CMHTs) for people with severe mental illnesses and disordered personality

BACKGROUND

Closure of asylums and institutions for the mentally ill, coupled with government policies focusing on reducing the number of hospital beds for people with severe mental illness in favour of providing care in a variety of non-hospital settings, underpins the rationale behind care in the community. A major thrust towards community care has been the development of community mental health teams (CMHT).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of community mental health team (CMHT) treatment for anyone with serious mental illness compared with standard non-team management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2006). We manually searched the Journal of Personality Disorders, and contacted colleagues at ENMESH, ISSPD and in forensic psychiatry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of CMHT management versus non-team standard care.

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 fixed effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

CMHT management did not reveal any statistically significant difference in death by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.1 to 2.2) although overall, fewer deaths occurred in the CMHT group. We found no significant differences in the number of people leaving the studies early (n=253, 2 RCTs, RR 1.10 CI 0.7 to 1.8). Significantly fewer people in the CMHT group were not satisfied with services compared with those receiving standard care (n=87, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 11). Also, hospital admission rates were significantly lower in the CMHT group (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.81 CI 0.7 to 1.0, NNT 17 CI 10 to 104) compared with standard care. Admittance to accident and emergency services, contact with primary care, and contact with social services did not reveal any statistical difference between comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Community mental health team management is not inferior to non-team standard care in any important respects and is superior in promoting greater acceptance of treatment. It may also be superior in reducing hospital admission and avoiding death by suicide. The evidence for CMHT based care is insubstantial considering the massive impact the drive toward community care has on patients, carers, clinicians and the community at large.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives are to review the effects of a crisis intervention model for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared with 'standard care'.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the 1998 and 2003 searches with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (January 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated relative risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). We calculated Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Several home-care studies have been carried out recently but none of these met the inclusion criteria for this review. For the 2006 update we excluded four more studies (total excluded 25). Two other recent studies await assessment; we found no new studies to add to the five studies already included in this review. None of these included studies purely investigated crisis intervention; all used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. Forty five percent of the crisis/home care group were unable to avoid hospital admission during their treatment period. Home care, however, may help avoid repeat admissions (n=465, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.54 to 0.92, NNT 11 CI 6 to 97), but these data are heterogeneous (I-squared 86%). Crisis/home care reduces the number of people leaving the study early (n=594, 4 RCTs, RR lost at 12 months 0.74 CI 0.56 to 0.98, NNT 13 CI 7 to 130), reduces family burden (n=120, 1 RCT, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, NNT 3 CI 2 to 4), and is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families. We found no differences in death or mental state outcomes. All studies found home care to be more cost effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, compliance with medication or number of relapses were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home care crisis treatment, coupled with an ongoing home care package, is a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of a crisis intervention model for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared to 'standard care'.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of 1998 were updated with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (July 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, reviewers selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

This 2003 update includes no new studies. Five studies, none purely investigating crisis intervention, are included and 21 excluded. All included trials used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. 45% of the crisis/home care group were unable to avoid hospital admission during their treatment period. Home care, however, may help avoid repeat admissions (n = 465, 3 randomised controlled trials, RR 0.72 CI 0.54 to 0.92, NNT 11 CI 6 to 97), but these data are heterogeneous (I-squared 86%). Crisis/home care reduces the number of people leaving the study early (n = 594, 4 randomised controlled trials, RR lost at 12 months 0.74 CI 0.56 to 0.98, NNT 13 CI 7 to 130), reduces family burden (n = 120, 1 randomised controlled trial, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, NNT 3 CI 2 to 4), and is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families. We found no differences in death or mental state outcomes. All studies found home care to be more cost effective than hospital care but all data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, compliance with medication and number of relapses were available.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Home care crisis treatment, coupled with an ongoing home care package, is a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are needed.

[Sociotherapy in German social law. Indication, contents, and aspects of public health]

In German mental health services, the ill-defined term "sociotherapy" has been used to designate nonmedical, social, and work-related components of the care process. Recently, a new component of outpatient/community mental health care called "sociotherapy" (according to Paragraph 37a of the Fifth German Social Code) which is funded by the public health insurance system has been introduced and is now in the process of being implemented. The paper describes (a) patients eligible for the service and (b) the aims and scope of this case management module. The key objectives are to motivate patients with schizophrenia to utilise mental health services and antipsychotic medication and to liaise with psychosocial services. Therefore, sociotherapy is distinct from (a) multidisciplinary inpatient care for people with severe mental illness, (b) assertive community treatment, (c) community care provided by social workers or community psychiatric nurses, and (d) family interventions. So far there has been little evaluation of sociotherapy.

Interagency and interprofessional collaboration in community care: the interdependence of structures and values

This paper considers the problems of interagency and interprofessional collaboration in community care in Great Britain from the combined perspectives of UK and US researchers. The research team drew on empirical and theoretical literature from both countries to construct a framework for analysing inter- and intra-organisational theories of joint working. This analysis, supplemented and supported by local case studies conducted by the researchers, generates a framework recommendation against which the government's initiatives for partnership working in the NHS plan 2000 and subsequently can be critically reviewed. In particular, at a time when structural integration--via Care Trusts--is being seriously considered, they highlight the vital importance of integrated systems of goal setting, authority and multidisciplinary service delivery rather than a narrow focus on structural integration alone.

A randomized controlled trial of community-oriented and hospital-oriented care for discharged psychiatric patients: influence of personality disorder on police contacts

An important forensic psychiatric measure, contacts with police, was compared in a randomized, controlled trial of 155 patients with severe mental illness with a previous admission within the past two years. The patients, who also had their personality status addressed formally before randomization, were allocated to community multidisciplinary teams or to hospital-based care programs after discharge from in-patient care and were followed up for one year. A total of 138 patients (89%) had at least one post-baseline assessment and of these patients, 16 (12%) had at least one police contact in the year of the study, most of which were emergency assessments. The data showed significantly greater numbers of police contacts in patients with increasing severity of personality disturbance. Patients with such disturbance were six times more likely to have police contacts than those with no personality disorder. There were significantly more contacts in patients with borderline and antisocial (dissocial) personality disorder allocated to community-oriented care compared with hospital-oriented care. These findings have important implications for risk assessment in severe mental illness.

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. (A

Life skills programmes for chronic mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Most people with schizophrenia have a pattern of illness characterised by remission and relapses. The illness can become chronic and disabling. The social disability can require a variety of psychological, nursing and occupational therapies. Life skills programmes, addressing the needs associated with independent functioning, are often a part of the rehabilitation process.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of life skills programmes with standard care for people with chronic mental health problems.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL (1982-1997), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1997), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (April 1998), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997) and PsycLIT (1974-1997) were methodically searched. Hand searches and scrutiny of references supplemented this process.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials for life skills programmes versus standard care involving those with serious mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Searches were inspected by two reviewers (LR, MN) with a third (JC) acting as arbitrator. Data were extracted in the same way. Where possible an intention-to-treat analysis was undertaken on dichotomous data and normally distributed continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials were included with a total of 38 participants. Data were sparse and no clear effects were demonstrated.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

If life skills training is to continue as part of rehabilitation programmes a large, well designed, conducted and reported pragmatic randomised trial is an urgent necessity. There may even be an argument for stating that maintenance of current practice, outside of a randomised trial, is unethical.

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.

REVIEWER'S 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 hea

Tools, methods, and strategies. Do innovative models of health care delivery improve quality of care for selected vulnerable populations? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A criticism of conventional office or clinic-based models of care is that they focus on patients' urgent problems and do not provide the comprehensive assessments, education, and psychosocial support that vulnerable patients also need. Innovative models have emerged to address these needs. A systematic review of prospective studies involving searches of computerized databases, reviews of reference lists, and contacts with authors, was conducted to determine whether multidisciplinary teams, outreach or home care, and case management improve the quality of the care in two vulnerable populations-the terminally ill and the mentally ill.

RESULTS

Literature searches identified 730 citations. 52 original articles met screening standards, and 24 studies fulfilled all criteria. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was consistently higher with innovative models. In no study was satisfaction lower. Functional, clinical, or psychological improvements were not consistently demonstrated. For mentally ill patients, multidisciplinary outreach strategies were effective in reducing inpatient hospitalizations. Costs were inadequately assessed in the studies to draw a summary conclusion.

DISCUSSION

Like other interventions, health care delivery models can be assessed from an evidence-based perspective. More needs to be learned about the costs and health improvements of innovative models before we can determine whether the increased patient and caregiver satisfaction found justifies widespread use of these models. Development of a uniform set of quality outcome measures and encouragement to evaluate efforts and disseminate results will help accomplish this goal.

Economic impacts of assertive community treatment: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an extensively studied and widely imitated community support treatment model for severely mentally ill individuals. Several previous reviews have documented its favourable effects on clients and their families. This is the first review to focus on economic outcomes.

METHODS

Nineteen randomized studies and 15 nonrandomized studies describing ACT programs were identified based on 2 criteria: 1) provision of services primarily in the community and 2) shared caseloads. Percentage reduction in hospital days was calculated for the 34 study sites where reported data allowed it. Multiple-regression methods were used to relate reduction in hospital days to program fidelity and other contextual factors. The impacts of ACT on emergency-room use, use of outpatient services, housing, costs, and other economic outcomes were also examined.

RESULTS

Higher-fidelity programs appear to reduce hospital days by about 23 percentage points more than lower-fidelity programs (95% CI = -41.2, -5.2). The estimated regression coefficients imply that a high-fidelity program reduces hospitalizations by about 58% over 1 year if the alternative involves some type of case management and by 78% if it does not. ACT appears to increase the proportion of clients who live in independent housing situations, but the effect on use of supervised housing, and therefore on housing costs, is ambiguous. The effects on use of most other resources are inconsistent across studies. Overall, ACT appears to result in somewhat lower costs, whatever the perspective of analysis adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

The most reliable cost offset to ACT treatment costs appears to be reduced hospital use. Using Quebec costs, an ACT program must enroll people with prior hospital use of about 50 days yearly, on average, to break even. As care systems evolve to reduce their reliance on hospitalization as a care modality with or without ACT, this threshold will become increasingly difficult to achieve. The primary justification for implementing ACT services will then become their clinical benefits.

Ethics in community psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to clarify the ethical challenges resulting from new models of community psychiatry and to examine practical approaches aimed at meeting them.

METHOD

Review of the literature and observations both as clinician and medical director of community services.

RESULTS

Assertive community treatment presents ethical dilemmas relating to privacy, confidentiality, 'coercion' and conflicts of duty to the patient versus others, including carers and the wider community. Their acuity is influenced by the context in which services are provided, especially community fears of the consequences of care in the community for the severely mentally ill. Approaches to resolving ethical problems include increasing patient involvement in their care, clarifying the grounds for'paternalistic' interventions, and re-examining grounds for acting to reduce the risk of harm to others.

CONCLUSIONS

The ethical dilemmas are not new, but they present in sufficiently different guises to warrant reconsideration in their new context. There has been a reluctance to face them, but if community psychiatric practice is to survive, it must rest on a sound ethical base.

Effects of community mobile team intervention in the Drewnica Hospital catchment area. 1. Patient outcome

This study measured social functioning, treatment satisfaction and hospital utilization of 88 patients with chronic psychoses before and after a 1-year community mobile team programme, following most of the principles of assertive community treatment. The intervention had a positive impact in all measures. A clinically significant improvement of social functioning, as measured by Birchwood's Social Functioning Scale, was noted in 56% of patients, and 81% of subjects showed a clinically significant increase in satisfaction level. Time hospitalized decreased fourfold and number of admissions decreased twofold. To be certain that the changes found were due to the intervention and not other factors, further prospective studies of mobile community teams versus traditional care are indicated.

Utilisation and costs of community mental health services. PRiSM Psychosis Study. 5

BACKGROUND

The costs and the effectiveness of mental health services need to be evaluated if provision is to be efficient. Service use and costs are described for two geographical areas in south London.

METHOD

Service use was measured comprehensively for clients in both sectors for two six-month time periods using the Client Service Receipt Interview. This information was combined with unit costs to calculate service costs. The 'hidden' costs of informal care and unsupported accommodation were also calculated.

RESULTS

At baseline significantly more intensive sector clients had in-patient stays but by the follow-up this difference had disappeared. There was significantly more use of supported accommodation in the intensive sector during both time periods. Baseline and follow-up total service costs were significantly higher for the intensive sector. Costs were spread disproportionately and a small number of services accounted for a large proportion of cost.

CONCLUSIONS

While the cost at Time 2 was significantly greater in the intensive sector, this was largely due to the high use of supported accommodation. There was some convergence in cost between the sectors over time.

[Economic perspectives in the care and treatment of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia]

OBJECTIVE

To consider the main problems associated with care and treatment of patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia in the light of the more recent literature of the economic aspects of this pathology.

METHOD

An analysis of the literature related to the social costs of schizophrenia, the economic analysis of different health-care models, and the evaluation of the costs of antipsychotic treatments has been carried out.

RESULTS

Schizophrenia is a pathology creating huge social costs. The health costs associated with the care of schizophrenia take up a significant amount of the resources of healthcare systems in the principal industrialised countries. Indirect costs, due mainly to the patients' exclusion from work, exceed the direct costs of treatment. In those countries where community care has been supported by a real organisational effort to create community and residential services, it has proved to be a cost-effective solution compared with psychiatric hospital-based care and provides patients and family members with better results. The introduction of new antipsychotic drugs and the development of psychosocial support could represent the means of encouraging new healthcare strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, the organisation, technological means, and strategies which would allow the available resources to be invested in a rational way must be considered. Consideration of these issues appears to be unavoidable today, not only for the administrators and the policy makers but also for mental health service professionals.