RESUMO
In connection with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, mental healthcare concepts increasingly focus on the prevention of violence and coercion. Hospital care with an open-door policy is linked with a reduction in violence and coercive measures. The authors describe a specific therapeutic milieu aiming to promote social resources and to reduce institutional exclusion. Open-door policies can be extended to and tied in with outreach community mental health work. Model projects according to § 64b of the German Social Code (SGB V) on interdisciplinary care enable flexible needs-based care including home treatment for severe mental illness.
Assuntos
Serviços de Saúde Comunitária , Transtornos Mentais , Serviços de Saúde Mental , Psiquiatria , Coerção , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária/ética , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária/legislação & jurisprudência , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária/normas , Pessoas com Deficiência/legislação & jurisprudência , Pessoas com Deficiência/psicologia , Alemanha , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Serviços de Saúde Mental/ética , Serviços de Saúde Mental/legislação & jurisprudência , Serviços de Saúde Mental/normas , Psiquiatria/ética , Psiquiatria/legislação & jurisprudência , Psiquiatria/normas , Violência/prevenção & controleRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The cognitive behavioral therapy has been extensively investigated to assess relapse prevention rates in patients with alcohol dependence. In contrast, only little is known regarding the effectiveness of psychoanalytical psychotherapy in relapse prevention, although this treatment is widely used and especially so in Germany. The aim of this quasi-randomized study was to compare the effectiveness of these two group treatments' approaches under the condition of routine outpatient treatment in a non-university hospital. METHODS: After inpatient detoxification, patients with alcohol dependence were allocated either to combined behavioral intervention (CBI) or to psychoanalytic-interactional therapy (PIT). The group treatment was carried out weekly over a period of six months. Also, the clinical care package included both individual treatment sessions (e.g. every 4-6 weeks) and abstinence supporting medication. The main outcome criteria included retention rates and frequency of alcohol relapse. RESULTS: Some 215 patients (mean age 49.6 years [standard deviation, 10], 56.7% males, with a mean duration of alcohol dependence of 16.5 years [range: 1-50 years]) were included in the study. Overall, CBI clients showed a retention rate of 66.7%, compared to 81.8% for PIT clients (p =.008). An intention-to-treat analysis of alcohol relapses showed a significant difference between PIT and CBI groups (PIT: 33.6%; CBI: 49.5%; p =.018). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of prescription rates of disulfiram, naltrexone or acamprosate. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the study limitations, PIT seemed here to be at least as effective as CBI in terms of retention and relapse prevention rates' levels.