Manualized group cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety in first-episode psychosis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Social anxiety (SA), a prevalent comorbid condition in psychotic disorders with a negative impact on functioning, requires adequate intervention relatively early. Using a randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of a group cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention for SA (CBT-SA) that we developed for youth who experienced the first episode of psychosis (FEP). For our primary outcome, we hypothesized that compared to the active control of group cognitive remediation (CR), the CBT-SA group would show a reduction in SA that would be maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For secondary outcomes, it was hypothesized that the CBT-SA group would show a reduction of positive and negative symptoms and improvements in recovery and functioning. METHOD: Ninety-six patients with an FEP and SA, recruited from five different FEP programs in the Montreal area, were randomized to 13 weekly group sessions of either CBT-SA or CR intervention. RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed that multiple measures of SA significantly reduced over time, but with no significant group differences. Positive and negative symptoms, as well as functioning improved over time, with negative symptoms and functioning exhibiting a greater reduction in the CBT-SA group. CONCLUSIONS: While SA decreased over time with both interventions, a positive effect of the CBT-SA intervention on measures of negative symptoms, functioning, and self-reported recovery at follow-up suggests that our intervention had a positive effect that extended beyond symptoms specific to SA.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02294409.

Trust of patients and families in mental healthcare providers and institutions: a cross-cultural study in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada.

PURPOSE: Cross-cultural psychosis research has typically focused on a limited number of outcomes (generally symptom-related). It is unknown if the purported superior outcomes for psychosis in some low- and middle-income countries extend to fundamental treatment processes like trust. Addressing this gap, we studied two similar first-episode psychosis programs in Montreal, Canada, and Chennai, India. We hypothesized higher trust in healthcare institutions and providers among patients and families in Chennai at baseline and over follow-up. METHODS: Upon treatment entry and at months 3, 12 and 24, trust in healthcare providers was measured using the Wake Forest Trust scale and trust in the healthcare and mental healthcare systems using two single items. Nonparametric tests were performed to compare trust levels across sites and mixed-effects linear regression models to investigate predictors of trust in healthcare providers. RESULTS: The study included 333 patients (Montreal = 165, Chennai = 168) and 324 family members (Montreal = 128, Chennai = 168). Across all timepoints, Chennai patients and families had higher trust in healthcare providers and the healthcare and mental healthcare systems. The effect of site on trust in healthcare providers was significant after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics known to impact trust. Patients' trust in doctors increased over follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study uniquely focuses on trust as an outcome in psychosis, via a comparative longitudinal analysis of different trust dimensions and predictors, across two geographical settings. The consistent differences in trust levels between sites may be attributable to local cultural values and institutional structures and processes and underpin cross-cultural variations in treatment engagement and outcomes.

Context and contact: a comparison of patient and family engagement with early intervention services for psychosis in India and Canada.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether patient disengagement from early intervention services for psychosis is as prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like India, as it is in high-income countries (HICs). Addressing this gap, we studied two first-episode psychosis programs in Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India. We hypothesized lower service disengagement among patients and higher engagement among families in Chennai, and that family engagement would mediate cross-site differences in patient disengagement. METHODS: Sites were compared on their 2-year patient disengagement and family engagement rates conducting time-to-event analyses and independent samples t tests on monthly contact data. Along with site and family involvement, Cox proportional hazards regression included known predictors of patient disengagement (e.g. gender). RESULTS: The study included data about 333 patients (165 in Montreal, 168 in Chennai) and their family members (156 in Montreal, 168 in Chennai). More Montreal patients (19%) disengaged before 24 months than Chennai patients (1%), χ2(1, N = 333) = 28.87, p < 0.001. Chennai families had more contact with clinicians throughout treatment (Cohen's d = -1.28). Family contact significantly predicted patient disengagement in Montreal (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93). Unlike in Chennai, family contact declined over time in Montreal, with clinicians perceiving such contact as not necessary (Cohen's d = 1.73). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first investigation of early psychosis service engagement across a HIC and an LMIC. Patient and family engagement was strikingly higher in Chennai. Maintaining family contact may benefit patient engagement, irrespective of context. Findings also suggest that differential service utilization may underpin cross-cultural variations in psychosis outcomes.

Unfinished business: Functional outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of a three-year extension of early intervention versus regular care following two years of early intervention for psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether first-episode psychosis patients receiving extended early intervention had better functional outcomes than those in regular care and to examine the predictors of functional outcomes. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled single-blind trial of 220 patients randomized after 2 years of early intervention to receive early intervention or regular care for the subsequent 3 years. Outcomes included cumulative time in functional recovery during the 3-year trial assessed using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS); and employment/education at last assessment which were, respectively, analyzed using multiple linear regression and logistic regression, accounting for well-known predictors. Linear mixed and generalized linear models were also used to examine the course of SOFAS and employment/education over the 3-year period. RESULTS: The extended early intervention and regular care groups did not differ on time in functional recovery (mean = 50.17 weeks, SD = 46.62 vs. mean = 46.18 weeks, SD = 51.54); percent employed/in school (60.4% vs. 68.8%) or change in SOFAS or employment/education status over time. SOFAS scores were stable between years 2 and 5. Individuals with longer periods of total symptom remission experienced significantly longer periods of functional recovery and were likelier to be employed/in school. Those who had completed high school were nine times likelier to be employed/studying. CONCLUSION: Most individuals maintained functional gains accrued from 2 years of early intervention with no further improvement whether in extended early intervention or regular care. There was a gap between symptomatic and functional recovery, and one-third were unemployed/not in school at year 5. The lack of additional progress even in extended early intervention suggests that specific interventions addressing functional roles need to be provided beyond the first 2 years of early intervention. Sustaining symptom remission and high-school completion may be additional avenues for targeting functional recovery.

Treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly injectable formulation is effective in improving symptoms and global functioning in schizophrenia with and without comorbid substance use - a post hoc analysis of the ReLiAM study.

BACKGROUND: ReLiAM, Real-Life Assessment of Abilify Maintena, was the first reported long-term prospective non-interventional study for patients with schizophrenia treated with aripiprazole once-monthly injectable formulation (AOM) under real-life conditions. ReLiAM's primary aim was to evaluate the evolution of global functional status in patients treated with AOM for 12 months in Canada. METHODS: The objective of this post hoc analysis of the ReLiAM study is to investigate the treatment effects of real-life use of AOM over a 1-year period in the subgroup of patients with reported substance use compared with patients without substance use. RESULTS: The results of this post hoc analysis demonstrate that treatment with AOM for 12 months in patients with schizophrenia was comparably effective in improving global functioning in subgroups of patients with and without concomitant substance use. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of AOM for the treatment of schizophrenia in patients with or without concomitant substance use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02131415, first posted on May 6, 2014. Overall trial status: Terminated.

An observational study of antipsychotic medication discontinuation in first-episode psychosis: clinical and functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of supervised antipsychotic medication discontinuation on clinical and functional outcomes in first-episode psychosis (FEP) in two different cultural environments. METHOD: FEP patients(N = 253), treated in two early intervention services (Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India) for 2 years, were assessed for medication use, positive and negative symptom remission and social-occupational functioning at regular intervals. RESULTS: Between months 4 and 24 of treatment, 107 patients discontinued medication ('Off'group) as compared to 146 who stayed on medication ('On'group). Medication discontinuation was higher in Chennai as compared to Montreal (n = 80, 49.07% vs n = 27, 16.87%; χ2 37.80, p < 0.001), with no difference in time to discontinuation [Means(SDs) = 10.64(6.82) and 10.04(5.43), respectively, p = 0.71). At month 24 (N = 235), there were no differences in the rate of positive symptom remission between the on and Off groups (81.5 vs 88.0%, respectively) at both sites. The rate of negative symptom remission was lower among patients in the On compared to the Off group (63.2 vs 87.9%, respectively, χ2 = 17.91, p < 0.001), but only in Montreal (55.4% vs 80.0%, respectively, χ2 = 4.12, p < 0.05). Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale scores were equally high in both Off and On medication groups in Chennai [Means (SDs) = 79.43(12.95) and 73.59(17.63), respectively] but higher in the Off compared to the On group in Montreal Means (SDs) = 77.47(14.97) and 64.94(19.02), respectively; Time × site interaction F = 3.96(1,217), p < 0.05]. Medication status (On-Off) had no impact on the outcomes, independent of other variables known to influence outcomes. CONCLUSION: Certain cultural environments and patient characteristics may facilitate supervised discontinuation of antipsychotic medication following treatment of an FEP without negative consequences.

Suicidality Over the First 5 Years of Psychosis: Does Extending Early Intervention Have Benefits?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP) receiving extended early intervention (EI) were less likely to experience suicidal ideation and behaviors than those transferred to regular care after 2 years of EI. Another objective was to examine the 5-year course of suicidality in FEP. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial where 220 patients were randomized after 2 years of EI to receive extended EI or regular care for the subsequent 3 years. Suicidality was rated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Linear mixed model analysis was used to study time and group effects on suicidality. RESULTS: Extended EI and regular care groups did not differ on suicidality. There was a small decrease in suicidality over time, F(7, 1038) = 1.84, P = 0.077, with an immediate sharp decline within a month of treatment, followed by stability over the remaining 5 years. Patients who endorsed suicidality at entry (46.6%) had higher baseline positive, negative, and depressive symptoms. The 5-year course fell in 3 groups: never endorsed suicidality (33.9%), endorsed suicidality at low-risk levels (43.1%), and endorsed high-risk levels (23.0%). The high-risk group had a higher proportion of affective versus nonaffective psychosis diagnosis; higher baseline positive and depressive symptoms; higher 5-year mean depression scores, and fewer weeks of positive symptom remission over the 5-year course. CONCLUSIONS: The first month of treatment is a critical period for suicide risk in FEP. Although early reductions in suicidality are often maintained, our findings make the case for sustained monitoring for suicide risk management.

Comparison of clinical outcomes following 2 years of treatment of first-episode psychosis in urban early intervention services in Canada and India.

BACKGROUND: Purported superior outcomes for treatment of psychosis in low- and middle-income (LMICs) compared with high-income (HICs) countries have not been examined in the context of early intervention services (EIS). AIMS: To compare 2-year clinical outcomes in first-episode psychosis (FEP) treated in EIS in Chennai (LMIC) and Montreal (HIC) using a similar EIS treatment protocol and to identify factors associated with any outcome differences. METHOD: Patients with FEP treated in EIS in Chennai (n = 168) and Montreal (n = 165) were compared on change in level of symptoms and rate and duration of positive and negative symptom remission over a 2-year period. Repeated-measures analysis of variance, and logistic and linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Four patients died in Chennai compared with none in Montreal. Family support was higher for Chennai patients (F = 14.05, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.061) and increased over time at both sites (F = 7.0, d.f. = 1.915, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.03). Negative symptom outcomes were significantly better in Chennai for level of symptoms (time × site interaction F = 7.36, d.f. = 1.49, P = 0.002, ƞp2 = 0.03), duration of remission (mean 16.1 v. 9.78 months, t = -7.35, d.f. = 331, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.80) and the proportion of patients in remission (81.5% v. 60.3%, χ2 = 16.12, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001). The site differences in outcome remained robust after adjusting for inter-site differences in other characteristics. Early remission and family support facilitated better outcome on negative symptoms. No significant differences were observed in positive symptom outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FEP treated in EIS in LMIC contexts are likely to show better outcome on negative symptoms compared with those in HIC contexts. Early remission and family support may benefit patients across both contexts.

Switching medication products during the treatment of psychiatric illness.

BACKGROUND: The common practice of switching between branded (reference) medications and their corresponding generic products, between generic products, or even from a generic product to a branded medication during the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disorders may compromise efficacy and/or tolerability. METHODS: We assessed the published literature from March 1, 2010 through June 30, 2017 via PubMed using the MeSH term 'generics, drugs' alone and in combination with class-specific terms (e.g., 'anticonvulsants', 'mood stabilisers'), for studies detailing outcomes following product switches. RESULTS: Although some studies comparing the initiation of reference versus generic drugs suggest equivalence between products, several studies detailing a switch between reference and generic products describe reductions in efficacy, reduced medication adherence and persistence, and increased overall health care resource utilization and costs associated with generic substitution. CONCLUSION: When product switches are considered, they should only proceed with the full knowledge of both patient and provider.

Patient- and family-reported experiences of their treating teams in early psychosis services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural psychosis research has mostly focused on outcomes, rather than patient and family experiences. Therefore, our aim was to examine differences in patients' and families' experiences of their treating teams in early intervention services for psychosis in Chennai, India [low- and middle-income country] and Montreal, Canada [high-income country]. METHODS: Patients (165 in Chennai, 128 in Montreal) and their families (135 in Chennai, 110 in Montreal) completed Show me you care, a patient- and family-reported experience measure, after Months 3, 12, and 24 in treatment. The measure assesses the extent to which patients and families view treating teams as being supportive. A linear mixed model with longitudinal data from patient and family dyads was used to test the effect of site (Chennai, Montreal), stakeholder (patient, family), and time on Show me you care scores. This was followed by separate linear mixed effect models for patients and families with age and gender, as well as symptom severity and functioning as time-varying covariates. RESULTS: As hypothesized, Chennai patients and families reported more supportive behaviours from their treating teams (ß=4.04; ß= 9, respectively) than did Montreal patients (Intercept =49.6) and families (Intercept=42.45). Higher symptom severity over follow-up was associated with patients reporting lower supportive behaviours from treating teams. Higher levels of positive symptoms (but lower levels of negative symptoms) over follow-up were associated with families reporting lower supportive behaviours from treating teams. There was no effect of time, age, gender and functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The levels to which treating teams are perceived as supportive may reflect culturally shaped attitudes (e.g., warmer attitudes towards healthcare providers in India vis-à-vis Canada) and actual differences in how supportive treating teams are, which too may be culturally shaped. Being expected to be more involved in treatment, Chennai families may receive more attention and support, which may further reinforce their involvement. Across contexts, those who improve over follow-up may see their treating teams more positively.

Trust of patients and families in mental healthcare providers and institutions: A cross-cultural study in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada.

Purpose: Cross-cultural psychosis research has typically focused on a limited number of outcomes (generally symptom-related). It is unknown if the purported superior outcomes for psychosis in some low- and middle-income countries extend to fundamental treatment processes like trust. Addressing this gap, we studied two similar first-episode psychosis programs in Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India. We hypothesized higher trust in healthcare institutions and providers among patients and families in Chennai at baseline and over follow-up. Methods: Upon treatment entry and at months 3, 12 and 24, trust in healthcare providers was measured using the Wake Forest Trust scale and trust in the healthcare and mental healthcare systems using two single items. Non-parametric tests were performed to compare trust levels across sites and mixed-effects linear regression models to investigate predictors of trust in healthcare providers. Results: The study included 333 patients (Montreal=165, Chennai=168) and 324 family members (Montreal=128, Chennai=168). Across all timepoints, Chennai patients and families had higher trust in healthcare providers and the healthcare and mental healthcare systems. The effect of site on trust in healthcare providers was significant after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics known to impact trust. Patients' trust in doctors increased over follow-up. Conclusion: This study uniquely focuses on trust as an outcome in psychosis, via a comparative longitudinal analysis of different trust dimensions and predictors, across two geographical settings. The consistent differences in trust levels between sites may be attributable to local cultural values and institutional structures and processes and underpin cross-cultural variations in treatment engagement and outcomes.

Predictors of treatment attrition of cognitive health interventions in first episode psychosis.

AIM: Dropping out of psychological interventions is estimated to occur in up to a third of individuals with psychosis. Given the high degree of attrition in this population, identifying predictors of attrition is important to develop strategies to retain individuals in treatment. We observed a particularly high degree of attrition (48%) in a recent randomized controlled study assessing cognitive health interventions for first-episode psychosis participants with comorbid social anxiety. Due to the importance of developing interventions for social anxiety in first episode psychosis, the aim of the present study was to identify putative predictors of attrition through a secondary analysis of data. METHODS: Participants (n = 96) with first episode psychosis and comorbid social anxiety were randomized to receive cognitive behavioural therapy for social anxiety or cognitive remediation. Differences between completers and non-completers (<50% intervention completed) were compared using t-tests or chi-square analyses; statistically significant variables were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Non-completers tended to be younger, had fewer years of education and had lower levels of social anxiety compared to completers. Lower baseline social anxiety and younger age were statistically significant predictors of non-completion in the logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Age and social anxiety were predictors of attrition in cognitive health interventions in first episode psychosis populations with comorbid social anxiety. In the ongoing development of social anxiety interventions for this population, future studies should investigate specific engagement strategies, intervention formats and outcome monitoring to improve participant retention in treatment.

The Best Predictor of the Future-the Metaverse, Mental Health, and Lessons Learned From Current Technologies.

The metaverse-a virtual world accessed via virtual reality technology-has been heralded as the next key digital experience. It is meant to provide the next evolution of human interaction after social media and telework. However, in the context of the growing awareness of the risks to mental health posed by current social media technologies, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the potential effects of this new technology on mental health. This uncertainty is compounded by a lack of clarity regarding what form the metaverse will ultimately take and how widespread its application will be. Despite this, given the nascent state of the metaverse, there is an opportunity to plan the research and regulatory approaches needed to understand it and promote its positive effects while protecting vulnerable groups. In this viewpoint, we examine the following three current technologies whose functions comprise a portion of what the metaverse seeks to accomplish: teleworking, virtual reality, and social media. We attempted to understand in what ways the metaverse may have similar benefits and pitfalls to these technologies but also how it may fundamentally differ from them. These differences suggest potential research questions to be addressed in future work. We found that current technologies have enabled tools such as virtual reality-assisted therapy, avatar therapy, and teletherapy, which have had positive effects on mental health care, and that the metaverse may provide meaningful improvements to these tools. However, given its similarities to social media and its expansion upon the social media experience, the metaverse raises some of the same concerns that we have with social media, such as the possible exacerbation of certain mental health problems. These concerns led us to consider questions such as how the users will be protected and what regulatory mechanisms will be put in place to ensure user safety. Although clear answers to these questions are challenging in this early phase of metaverse research, in this viewpoint, we use the context provided by comparator technologies to provide recommendations to maximize the potential benefits and limit the putative harms of the metaverse. We hope that this paper encourages discussions among researchers and policy makers.

A systematic meta-review of patient-level predictors of psychological therapy outcome in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapies are effective for treating major depressive disorder, but current clinical guidelines do not provide guidance on the personalization of treatment choice. Established predictors of psychotherapy treatment response could help inform machine learning models aimed at predicting individual patient responses to different therapy options. Here we sought to comprehensively identify known predictors. METHODS: EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO were searched for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis published until June 2020 to identify individual patient-level predictors of response to psychological treatments. 3113 abstracts were identified and 300 articles assessed. We qualitatively synthesized our findings by predictor category (sociodemographic; symptom profile; social support; personality features; affective, cognitive, and behavioural; comorbidities; neuroimaging; genetics) and treatment type. We used the AMSTAR 2 to evaluate the quality of included reviews. RESULTS: Following screening and full-text assessment, 27 systematic reviews including 12 meta-analyses were eligible for inclusion. 74 predictors emerged for various psychological treatments, primarily cognitive behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. LIMITATIONS: A paucity of studies examining predictors of psychological treatment outcome, as well as methodological heterogeneities and publication biases limit the strength of the identified predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesized predictors could be used to supplement clinical decision-making in selecting psychological therapies based on individual patient characteristics. These predictors could also be used as a priori input features for machine learning models aimed at predicting a given patient's likelihood of response to different treatment options for depression, and may contribute toward the development of patient-specific treatment recommendations in clinical guidelines.

Whose responsibility? Part 2 of 2: views of patients, families, and clinicians about responsibilities for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with mental health problems have many insufficiently met support needs. Across sociocultural contexts, various parties (e.g., governments, families, persons with mental health problems) assume responsibility for meeting these needs. However, key stakeholders' opinions of the relative responsibilities of these parties for meeting support needs remain largely unexplored. This is a critical knowledge gap, as these perceptions may influence policy and caregiving decisions. METHODS: Patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 250), their family members (n = 228), and clinicians (n = 50) at two early intervention services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada were asked how much responsibility they thought the government versus persons with mental health problems; the government versus families; and families versus persons with mental health problems should bear for meeting seven support needs of persons with mental health problems (e.g., housing; help covering costs of substance use treatment; etc.). Two-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences in ratings of responsibility between sites (Chennai, Montreal); raters (patients, families, clinicians); and support needs. RESULTS: Across sites and raters, governments were held most responsible for meeting each support need and all needs together. Montreal raters assigned more responsibility to the government than did Chennai raters. Compared to those in Montreal, Chennai raters assigned more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems, except for the costs of substance use treatment. Family raters across sites assigned more responsibility to governments than did patient raters, and more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems than did patient and clinician raters. At both sites, governments were assigned less responsibility for addressing housing- and school/work reintegration-related needs compared to other needs. In Chennai, the government was seen as most responsible for stigma reduction and least for covering substance use services. CONCLUSIONS: All stakeholders thought that governments should have substantial responsibility for meeting the needs of individuals with mental health problems, reinforcing calls for greater government investment in mental healthcare across contexts. The greater perceived responsibility of the government in Montreal and of families in Chennai may both reflect and influence differences in cultural norms and healthcare systems in India and Canada.

Whose responsibility? Part 1 of 2: A scale to assess how stakeholders apportion responsibilities for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study's objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. METHODS: The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government versus persons with mental health problems, government versus families, and families versus persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government's and people's responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Internal consistency estimates were also calculated for confirmatory purposes with the larger samples from the main comparative study. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) generally ranged from excellent to fair across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians), settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). In the standardization and larger confirmatory samples, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1-10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility for meeting needs should be distributed. On select items, scores at one end of the scale were never endorsed, but these reflected expected views about specific needs (e.g., Chennai patients never endorsed patients as being substantially more responsible for housing needs than families). CONCLUSIONS: The WRS is a promising measure for use across geo-cultural contexts to inform mental health policies, and to foster dialogue and accountability among stakeholders about roles and responsibilities. It can help researchers study stakeholders' views about responsibilities, and how these shape and are shaped by sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems.

Evaluating the perceived utility of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support system for depression treatment using a simulation center.

Aifred is a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that uses artificial intelligence to assist physicians in selecting treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD) by providing probabilities of remission for different treatment options based on patient characteristics. We evaluated the utility of the CDSS as perceived by physicians participating in simulated clinical interactions. Twenty physicians who were either staff or residents in psychiatry or family medicine completed a study in which they had three 10-minute clinical interactions with standardized patients portraying mild, moderate, and severe episodes of MDD. During these scenarios, physicians were given access to the CDSS, which they could use in their treatment decisions. The perceived utility of the CDSS was assessed through self-report questionnaires, scenario observations, and interviews. 60% of physicians perceived the CDSS to be a useful tool in their treatment-selection process, with family physicians perceiving the greatest utility. Moreover, 50% of physicians would use the tool for all patients with depression, with an additional 35% noting that they would reserve the tool for more severe or treatment-resistant patients. Furthermore, clinicians found the tool to be useful in discussing treatment options with patients. The efficacy of this CDSS and its potential to improve treatment outcomes must be further evaluated in clinical trials.

Economic Evaluation of Extended Early Intervention Service vs Regular Care Following 2 Years of Early Intervention: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Cost-effectiveness studies of early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have not included extension beyond the first 2 years. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 3-year extension of EIS compared to regular care (RC) from the public health care payer's perspective. Following 2 years of EIS in a university setting in Montreal, Canada, patients were randomized to a 3-year extension of EIS (n = 110) or RC (n = 110). Months of total symptom remission served as the main outcome measure. Resource use and cost data for publicly covered health care services were derived mostly from administrative systems. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were produced. Relative cost-effectiveness was estimated for those with duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of 12 weeks or less vs longer. Extended early intervention had higher costs for psychiatrist and nonphysician interventions, but total costs were not significantly different. The ICER was $1627 per month in total remission. For the intervention to have an 80% chance of being cost-effective, the decision-maker needs to be willing to pay $5942 per month of total symptom remission. DUP ≤ 12 weeks was associated with a reduction in costs of $12 276 even if no value is placed on additional months in total remission. Extending EIS for psychosis for people, such as those included in this study, may be cost-effective if the decision-maker is willing to pay a high price for additional months of total symptom remission, though one commensurate with currently funded interventions. Cost-effectiveness was much greater for people with DUP ≤12 weeks.