Collaborative care for patients with bipolar disorder: randomised 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.

Current practices of psychoeducation interventions with persons with bipolar disorders: a literature review

This review sought to summarize the literature on current practices and forms of psychoeducation in the management of patients with bipolar disorder (BD), including only randomized controlled trials to ensure the best level of evidence. An extensive review of the available literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychInfo databases from inception to April 28th, 2022. The search yielded 381 studies. Seventy articles were included after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis was used to identify the key results of each study and summarize the outcomes. Eleven descriptive categories were made. They encompass different forms of psychoeducation compared or combined with other psychosocial interventions, varying in setting (individual or group), with or without family members, structured or unstructured, mediated or not by digital tools (smartphone, internet). Globally, these studies show that psychoeducation is important in the treatment of BD, as it leads to a decrease in relapses, mood episodes, hospitalizations, and improved functioning or quality of life. Some studies also showed the benefits of psychoeducation on the patient's level of knowledge of pharmacological treatment and the disorder or compliance with medication, as well as reduced self-stigma. The limitations of this review are linked to the selection of only RCTs and the reliance on their post-hoc analyses. This review confirms the benefit of psychoeducation and psychosocial interventions on the evolution of BD (in different outcomes, including quality of life, relapse, and rehospitalization rates, for example). More recent interventions, such as mindfulness or online psychoeducation, represent an interesting option but more evidence is needed.

Mental health consumer perspectives of a person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meeting on a rehabilitation inpatient unit

Mental health consumers are seeking genuine involvement in the planning regarding their treatment and care; however for many consumers in inpatient mental health settings, there is not the opportunity to participate. Current research evaluating person-centred multidisciplinary care planning initiatives in inpatient settings from the consumer perspective is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the consumer perspective of a person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meeting implemented in an Australian inpatient mental health rehabilitation unit. This study used a focused ethnographic design with data collection including fieldnotes, observations of meetings and interviews. Ten individuals participated in the study, with two participating in meeting observations and eight participating in structured interviews. Participants were consumers with a mental health diagnosis admitted to a mental health rehabilitation unit for assistance with achieving their goals for community living. Findings were analysed utilizing thematic analysis. Findings showed that consumers' experiences of the care planning meetings were positive. Themes included; 'It's about you', 'Making decisions and expressing opinions', 'Staff involvement in care planning' and 'Supporting consumer recovery'. These findings add the consumer perspective to the existing evidence base and support the implementation of person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meetings in inpatient mental health settings.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Development of a scale to measure shared problem-solving and decision-making in mental healthcare

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to create a measure of collaborative processes between healthcare team members, patients, and carers.

METHODS

A shared decision-making scale was developed using a qualitative research derived model and refined using Rasch and factor analysis. The scale was used by staff in the hospital for four consecutive years (n = 152, 121, 119 and 121) and by two independent patients' and carers' samples (n = 223 and 236).

RESULTS

Respondents had difficulty determining what constituted a decision and the scale was redeveloped after first use in patients and carers. The initial focus on shared decision-making was changed to shared problem-solving. Two factors were found in the first staff sample: shared problem-solving and shared decision-making. The structure was confirmed on the second patients' and carers' sample and an independent staff sample consisting of the first data-points for the last three years. The shared problem-solving and decision-making scale (SPSDM) demonstrated evidence of convergent and divergent validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance on longitudinal data and sensitivity to change.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared problem-solving was easier to measure than shared decision-making in this context.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Shared problem-solving is an important component of collaboration, as well as shared decision-making.

Digital and Mobile Health Technology in Collaborative Behavioral Health Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The collaborative care model (CoCM) is a well-established system of behavioral health care in primary care settings. There is potential for digital and mobile technology to augment the CoCM to improve access, scalability, efficiency, and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a scoping review to synthesize the evidence available on digital and mobile health technology in collaborative care settings.

METHODS

This review included cohort and experimental studies of digital and mobile technologies used to augment the CoCM. Studies examining primary care without collaborative care were excluded. A literature search was conducted using 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). The search results were screened in 2 stages (title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review) by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 3982 nonduplicate reports were identified, of which 20 (0.5%) were included in the analysis. Most studies used a combination of novel technologies. The range of digital and mobile health technologies used included mobile apps, websites, web-based platforms, telephone-based interactive voice recordings, and mobile sensor data. None of the identified studies used social media or wearable devices. Studies that measured patient and provider satisfaction reported positive results, although some types of interventions increased provider workload, and engagement was variable. In studies where clinical outcomes were measured (7/20, 35%), there were no differences between groups, or the differences were modest.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of digital and mobile health technologies in CoCM is still limited. This study found that technology was most successful when it was integrated into the existing workflow without relying on patient or provider initiative. However, the effect of digital and mobile health on clinical outcomes in CoCM remains unclear and requires additional clinical trials.

Comparison of Teleintegrated Care and Telereferral Care for Treating Complex Psychiatric Disorders in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Importance

Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings.

Objective

To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months.

Interventions

Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology-enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral [PER]) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects.

Results

Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 2 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (β = 1.0; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.8; P = .28). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; TER: Cohen d = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (β = 2.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.7; P = .29).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944.

Exploring factors associated with personal recovery in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Personal recovery is increasingly recognized as important outcome for people with bipolar disorder (BD), but research addressing associated factors of personal recovery in this group remains scarce. This study aimed to explore the association of sociodemographic variables, social participation, psychopathology, and positive emotion regulation with personal recovery in BD.

METHODS

Baseline data from a randomized controlled trial and survey data were combined (N = 209) and split into a training (n = 149) and test sample (n = 60). Block-wise regression analyses and model training were used to determine the most relevant predictors. The final parsimonious model was cross-validated in the test sample.

RESULTS

In the final parsimonious model, satisfaction with social roles (β = .442, p < .001), anxiety symptoms (β = -.328, p < .001), manic symptoms (β = .276, p < .001), and emotion-focused positive rumination (β = .258, p < .001) were independently associated with personal recovery. The model explained 57.3% variance in personal recovery (adjusted R²  = .561) and performed well in predicting personal recovery in the independent test sample (adjusted R²  = .491).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that especially social participation, anxiety and positive rumination might be relevant treatment targets when aiming to improve personal recovery.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Personal recovery is considered an increasingly important outcome for people with chronic mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder. We found that anxiety and manic symptoms as well as positive rumination and social participation were independently associated with personal recovery in bipolar disorder. Therefore, these outcomes might be relevant treatment targets when aiming to improve personal recovery in bipolar disorder. Possible interventions to improve these outcomes are discussed, including supported employment and vocational rehabilitation for social participation and exercising with savoring strategies to increase positive rumination.

Relapse prevention in ambulant mental health care tailored to patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Understanding the need for psychoeducation and management strategies in relapse prevention, for individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Interventions for individuals with severe mental illness, especially schizophrenia, often requires support from family or social network to successfully improve mental stability in the life of the mentally ill. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: To our knowledge, no previous review has provided an overview of state of the art intervention elements currently used in ambulant mental health care interventions and how these elements are combined in interventions tailored to individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Moreover, this systematic review indicates the effect of the different intervention elements. This review reveals an apparent gab in knowledge regarding patient perceptions of and need for individualized relapse prevention interventions. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The review is a relevant tool for stakeholders and practitioners in community mental health service when planning future interventions. Considering the specific needs for intervention complexity of the target group is likely to improve not only treatment outcome, but also patient satisfaction and treatment adherence. ABSTRACT: Introduction In recent years, there has been a development in ambulant mental health care towards a more preventive approach, resulting in relapse prevention interventions. Interventions may be patient tailored, to a greater or lesser extent, in relation to the treatment elements included. Aim To create an overview of non-pharmacological intervention elements described in relapse prevention interventions for patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder based on a systematic review. Method Six scientific databases were systematically searched. The search strategy, identification and selection of literature complied with the PRISMA statement. Results Of 7.429 studies screened, 25 were included for analysis. Six treatment elements were identified: Pharmacological treatment, personalized action plan, patient education, patient skills, treatment adherence and family involvement. Discussion The varying degree of complexity of the interventions indicates that patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have, respectively, different treatment needs. Patients with schizophrenia seem to benefit more from interventions that include support from social network or family than patients with bipolar disorder. More qualitative studies clarifying the patient's perspective on tailored relapse prevention are indicated. Implications for practice Optimally tailoring relapse prevention for patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder will improve treatment outcome, and probably also treatment satisfaction and adherence.

Time course and heterogeneity of treatment effect of the collaborative chronic care model on psychiatric hospitalization rates: A survival analysis using routinely collected electronic medical records

BACKGROUND

Health systems are undergoing widespread adoption of the collaborative chronic care model (CCM). Care structured around the CCM may reduce costly psychiatric hospitalizations. Little is known, however, about the time course or heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) for CCM on psychiatric hospitalization.

RATIONALE

Assessment of CCM implementation support on psychiatric hospitalization might be more efficient if the timing were informed by an expected time course. Further, understanding HTE could help determine who should be referred for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

(i) Estimate the trajectory of CCM effect on psychiatric hospitalization rates. (ii) Explore HTE for CCM across demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

Data from a stepped wedge CCM implementation trial were reanalyzed using 5 570 patients in CCM treatment and 46 443 patients receiving usual care. Time-to-event data was constructed from routine medical records. Effect trajectory of CCM on psychiatric hospitalization was simulated from an extended Cox model over one year of implementation support. Covariate risk contributions were estimated from subset stratified Cox models without using simulation. Ratios of hazard ratios (RHR) allowed comparison by trial arm for HTE analysis, also without simulation. No standard Cox proportional hazards models were used for either estimating the time-course or heterogeneity of treatment effect.

RESULTS

The effect of CCM implementation support increased most rapidly immediately after implementation start and grew more gradually throughout the rest of the study. On the final study day, psychiatric hospitalization rates in the treatment arm were 17% to 49% times lower than controls, with adjustment for all model covariates (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.83). Our analysis of HTE favored usual care for those with a history of prior psychiatric hospitalization (RHR 4.92; 95% CI 3.15-7.7) but favored CCM for those with depression (RHR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.91). Having a single medical diagnosis, compared to having none, favored CCM (RHR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Reduction of psychiatric hospitalization is evident immediately after start of CCM implementation support, but assessments may be better timed once the effect size begins to stabilize, which may be as early as six months. HTE findings for CCM can guide future research on utility of CCM in specific populations.

Implementation of perinatal collaborative care: a health services approach to perinatal depression care

Aim:

Our objective was to integrate lessons learned from perinatal collaborative care programs across the United States, recognizing the diversity of practice settings and patient populations, to provide guidance on successful implementation.

Background:

Collaborative care is a health services delivery system that integrates behavioral health care into primary care. While efficacious, effectiveness requires rigorous attention to implementation to ensure adherence to the core evidence base.

Methods:

Implementation strategies are divided into three pragmatic stages: preparation, program launch, and program growth and sustainment; however, these steps are non-linear and dynamic.

Findings:

The discussion that follows is not meant to be prescriptive; rather, all implementation tasks should be thoughtfully tailored to the unique needs and setting of the obstetric community and patient population. In particular, we are aware that implementation on the level described here assumes commitment of both effort and money on the part of clinicians, administrators, and the health system, and that such financial resources are not always available. We conclude with synthesis of a survey of existing collaborative care programs to identify implementation practices of existing programs.

Treatment Attitudes and Adherence Among Patients with Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews about treatment attitudes of patients influencing adherence in bipolar disorder (BD) are rare.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and principles of thematic synthesis. Selectively identified quantitative and qualitative studies were used to examine the attitude-adherence relationship in BD, the types and correlates of treatment attitudes, and the impact of psychosocial interventions on attitudes.

RESULTS

The final list of 163 articles included 114 observational reports (incorporating 21 psychosocial intervention trials), 45 qualitative/descriptive studies, and 4 patient surveys. A positive association between treatment attitudes and adherence was found in most quantitative and qualitative studies, though the strength of the relationship was unclear. Thematic analysis of qualitative studies suggested that patient attitudes influencing adherence were based on perceived advantages and disadvantages of treatment. The principal correlates of patients' attitudes were family attitudes, the clinician-patient alliance, social support, and patients' knowledge of BD. Though negative attitudes such as denial, concerns about adverse treatment consequences, and stigmatizing effects of treatment were common, many patients believed treatment to be beneficial and necessary. The limited data on the effect of psychosocial interventions indicated that treatments selectively targeting attitudes enhanced adherence.

LIMITATIONS

The studies were heterogeneous in design; the quality was uneven (fair to poor); and the risk of bias moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite these flaws, awareness of the existing evidence on the attitude-adherence association and other aspects of treatment attitudes in BD can help in efforts to address nonadherence in BD.

Predictors of Functional Outcome in Patients With Bipolar Disorder: Effects of Cognitive Psychoeducational Group Therapy After 12 Months

Background: Cognitive deficits are known as a core feature in bipolar disorder. Persisting neurocognitive impairment is associated with low psychosocial functioning. The aim of this study was to identify potential cognitive, clinical and treatment-dependent predictors for functional impairment, symptom severity and early recurrence in bipolar patients, as well as to analyze neurocognitive performance compared to healthy controls. Methods: Forty three remitted bipolar patients and 40 healthy controls were assessed with a neurocognitive battery testing specifically attention, memory, verbal fluency and executive functions. In a randomized controlled trial, remitted patients were assigned to two treatment conditions as add-on to state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy: cognitive psychoeducational group therapy over 14 weeks or treatment-as-usual. At 12 months after therapy, functional impairment and severity of symptoms were assessed. Results: Compared to healthy controls, bipolar patients showed lower performance in executive function (perseverative errors p < 0.01, categories correct p < 0.001), sustained attention (total hits p < 0.001), verbal learning (delayed recall p < 0.001) and verbal fluency (p-words p < 0.002). Cognitive psychoeducational group therapy and attention predicted occupational functioning with a hit ratio of 87.5%. Verbal memory recall was found to be a predictor for symptom severity (hit ratio 86.8%). Recurrence in the follow-up period was predicted by premorbid IQ and by years of education (hit ratio 77.8%). Limitations: Limitations of the present study result mainly from a small sample size. The extent of cognitive impairment appears to impact occupational disability, clinical outcome as well as recurrence rate. This result must be interpreted with caution because statistical analysis failed to show higher significance. Conclusions: Bipolar patients benefit from cognitive psychoeducational group therapy in the domain of occupational life. Deficits in sustained attention have an impact on occupational impairment. Implications for treatment strategies are discussed. Further evaluation in larger studies is needed.

Barriers and enablers to collaboration in the mental health system in Sabah, Malaysia: towards a theory of collaboration

BACKGROUND

The systems that help people with mental disorders in Malaysia include hospitals, primary care, traditional and religious systems, schools and colleges, employers, families and other community members.

AIMS

To better understand collaboration between and within these systems and create a theoretical framework for system development.

METHOD

A total of 26 focus groups and 27 individual interviews were undertaken with patients, carers, psychiatric hospital staff, primary care and district hospital staff, religious and traditional healers, community leaders, non-governmental organisation workers, and school and college counsellors. Grounded theory methods were used to analyse the data and create a theory of collaboration.

RESULTS

Three themes both defined and enabled collaboration: (a) collaborative behaviours; (b) motivation towards a common goal or value; and (c) autonomy. Three other enablers of collaboration were identified: (d) relatedness (for example trusting, understanding and caring about the other); (e) resources (competence, time, physical resources and opportunities); and (f) motivation for collaboration (weighing up the personal costs versus benefits of acting collaboratively).

CONCLUSIONS

The first three themes provided a definition of collaboration in this context: 'two or more parties working together towards a common goal or value, while maintaining autonomy'. The main barriers to collaboration were lack of autonomy, relatedness, motivation and resources, together with the potential cost of acting collaboratively without reciprocation. Finding ways to change these structural, cultural and organisational features is likely to improve collaboration in this system and improve access to care and outcomes for patients.

Systematic Review of Symptom Assessment Measures for Use in Measurement-Based Care of Bipolar Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Utilization of measurement-based care (MBC) for bipolar disorders is limited, in part because of uncertainty regarding the utility of available measures. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature on patient-reported and clinician-observed measures of symptoms of bipolar disorder and the potential use of these measures in MBC.

METHODS

A systematic review of multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and other gray literature) was conducted in June 2017 to identify validated measures. Data on the psychometric properties of each measure were extracted and used to assess the measure's clinical utility on the basis of established guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight unique measures were identified in 39 studies, including four patient-reported and six clinician-observed measures assessing manic symptoms, three patient-reported and five clinician-observed measures of depressive symptoms, and six patient-reported and four clinician-observed measures of both symptom types. Patient-reported measures with the highest clinical utility included the Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale for assessment of manic symptoms, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR) (depressive symptoms), and the Internal State Scale (both types). Highly rated clinician (C)-observed scales were the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (mania), the QIDS-C (depressive symptoms), and the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (both types).

CONCLUSIONS

Suitable choices are available for MBC of bipolar disorders. The choice of a measure could be informed by clinical utility score and may also depend on how clinicians or practices weigh each category of the clinical utility scale and on the clinical setting and presenting problem.

Efficacy of shared decision-making on treatment adherence of patients with bipolar disorder: a cluster randomized trial (ShareD-BD)

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of interaction between doctors and patients in which both actors contribute to the medical decision-making process. SDM has raised great interest in mental healthcare over the last decade, as it is considered a fundamental part of patient-centered care. However, there is no research evaluating the efficacy of SDM compared to usual care (CAU), as it relates to quality of care and more specifically treatment adherence, in bipolar disorder (BD).

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a 12-month multi-centre, cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SDM to CAU. Adult BD patients (n = 300) will be eligible after stabilization for at least 4 weeks following an acute mood episode. The intervention will consist of applying the standardized SDM process as developed by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in order to choose the maintenance treatment of BD. A multidisciplinary team developed a decision aid "choose my long-term treatment with my doctor" for BD patients to clarify possible therapeutic options. Primary outcome will assess the patient's level of adherence (based on hetero-evaluation) of ongoing treatment at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will assess the difference between the 2 groups of patients in terms of adherence to maintenance drug therapy based on other measures (self-assessment scale and plasma levels of mood stabilizers). Additionally, other dimensions will be assessed: decisional conflict, satisfaction with care and involvement in decision making, beliefs about treatment, therapeutic relationship, knowledge about information for medical decision and clinical outcomes (depression, mania, functioning and quality of life). The primary endpoint will be analysed without adjustment by comparison of adherence scores between the two groups using Student t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests according to the variable distribution. A set of secondary analyses will be adjusted for covariates of clinical interest using generalized linear mixed regression models.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first study evaluating the effect of an SDM intervention on patient adherence in BD. This is also an innovative protocol because it proposes the development of an evidence-based tool that should help patients and clinicians to initiate discussions regarding the use of BD treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03245593 .

Shared Decision-Making: a Systematic Review Focusing on Mood Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aims to provide a review of the randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of shared decision-making (SDM) intervention in comparison to care as usual in patients with mood disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Of the 14 randomized controlled studies identified, only three 6-month studies evaluated the interest of SDM interventions using decision aids in depressed patients. All of them showed that the intervention effectively improved patient satisfaction and engagement in the decision-making process. Only one study in patients with bipolar disorder (BD) showed improvement of depressive symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Other included studies were collaborative care interventions using a SDM approach in patients with depression in specific populations depending on age, gender, income, and physical comorbidities. All of them showed significant improvement in depression outcomes or medication adherence. SDM interventions using decision aids and collaborative care showed evidence of improvements in the management of depression. Stronger evidence of SDM interest in BD is needed.

Outcomes for bipolar patients assessed in the French expert center network: A 2-year follow-up observational study (FondaMental Advanced Centers of Expertise for Bipolar Disorder [FACE-BD])

OBJECTIVE

A new health care system for patients with bipolar disorders was established in France under the auspices of Fondation FondaMental, based on thorough clinical assessment of patients and on close collaborations between expert centers and referring practitioners. We report the results of outcomes after 2 years of observational follow-up of adult patients assessed within the network.

METHOD

A total of 984 patients were included in the study. We compared several parameters (e.g., mood episodes and hospitalization) 1 year before inclusion and after 2 years of observational follow-up using the patient as his or her own control. Other outcomes were compared at baseline and during follow-up. We estimated the evolution of these parameters over a period of 2 years using mixed models for continuous parameters and a generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for categorical variables, adjusting for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Mean age was 42.7 (±12.5) years and 58.8% were women. The number of hospitalization days decreased by 55% when comparing 1 year before inclusion vs the follow-up period. In addition, patients showed a clear functional improvement associated with a reduction of residual mood symptoms, diminished psychiatric comorbidities, improvement of sleep and a better adherence to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates an overall improvement of patients followed for 2 years after an assessment in expert centers for bipolar disorders. This new organization based on a thorough clinical assessment and on personalized recommendations (drug treatments, psycho-social strategies and lifestyle measures) sent to health care professionals, and actively involving patients and families, improves the prognosis of BD patients.

Bipolar depression: Managing patients with second generation antipsychotics

Bipolar affective disorder is a debilitating illness that manifests as cyclical episodes of mood elevation and depression, but the treatment of the depressive episodes (i.e., bipolar depression) differs considerably from the treatment of major depressive disorder. In bipolar affective disorder, it is well known that patients spend a significantly greater amount of time in depressive episodes than manic or hypomanic episodes, yet there are currently just three Food and Drug Administration-approved agents for the treatment of bipolar depression: (1) olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (2) quetiapine, both immediate- and extended-release, and (3) lurasidone. The literature review presented here focuses on the clinical trials that led to the Food and Drug Administration-approval of these second generation antipsychotics in the treatment of bipolar depression. The discussion highlights key considerations regarding overall treatment strategies to aid clinicians in the selection of pharmacologic agents. Recommended monitoring parameters, potential adverse effects, and pertinent counseling points for second generation antipsychotics used in bipolar depression are included.

The Working Alliance Between Patients With Bipolar Disorder and the Nurse: Helpful and Obstructive Elements During a Depressive Episode From the Patients' Perspective

Despite treatment, many patients with bipolar disorder experience impaired functioning and a decreased quality of life. Optimal collaboration between patient and mental health care providers could enhance treatment outcomes. The goal of this qualitative study, performed in a trial investigating the effect of collaborative care, was to gain more insight in patients' experiences regarding the helpful and obstructive elements of the working alliance between the patient recovering from a depressive episode and their nurse. Three core themes underpinned the nurses' support during recovery: a safe and supportive environment, assistance in clarifying thoughts and feelings, and support in undertaking physical activities.

Psychosocial treatment and interventions for bipolar disorder: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic disorder with a high relapse rate, significant general disability and burden and with a psychosocial impairment that often persists despite pharmacotherapy. This indicates the need for effective and affordable adjunctive psychosocial interventions, tailored to the individual patient. Several psychotherapeutic techniques have tried to fill this gap, but which intervention is suitable for each patient remains unknown and it depends on the phase of the illness.

METHODS

The papers were located with searches in PubMed/MEDLINE through May 1st 2015 with a combination of key words. The review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

The search returned 7,332 papers; after the deletion of duplicates, 6,124 remained and eventually 78 were included for the analysis. The literature supports the usefulness only of psychoeducation for the relapse prevention of mood episodes and only in a selected subgroup of patients at an early stage of the disease who have very good, if not complete remission, of the acute episode. Cognitive-behavioural therapy and interpersonal and social rhythms therapy could have some beneficial effect during the acute phase, but more data are needed. Mindfulness interventions could only decrease anxiety, while interventions to improve neurocognition seem to be rather ineffective. Family intervention seems to have benefits mainly for caregivers, but it is uncertain whether they have an effect on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The current review suggests that the literature supports the usefulness only of specific psychosocial interventions targeting specific aspects of BD in selected subgroups of patients.