Common patient experiences across three resource-oriented interventions for severe mental illness: a qualitative study in low-resource settings.

INTRODUCTION: Resource-oriented interventions can be a low-cost option to improve care for patients with severe mental illnesses in low-resource settings. From 2018 to 2021 we conducted three randomized controlled trials testing resource-oriented interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), i.e. befriending through volunteers, multi-family groups, and improving patient-clinician meetings using the DIALOG+ intervention. All interventions were applied over 6 months and showed significant benefits for patients' quality of life, social functioning, and symptom levels. In this study, we explore whether patient experiences point to common processes in these interventions. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 patients from each intervention, resulting in a total sample of 45 patients. Patients were purposively selected at the end of the interventions including patients with different levels of engagement and different outcomes. Interviews explored the experiences of patients and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using the thematic analysis framework proposed by Braun and Clark. RESULTS: Three broad themes captured the overall experiences of patients receiving resource-oriented interventions: An increased confidence and agency in the treatment process; A new and unexpected experience in treatment; Concerns about the sustainability of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the three interventions - although focusing on different relationships of the patients - lead to similar beneficial experiences. In addition to being novel in the context of the mental health care system in B&H, they empower patients to take a more active and confident role in treatment. Whilst strengthening patients' agency in their treatment may be seen as a value in itself, it may also help to achieve significantly improved treatment outcomes. This shows promise for the implementation of these interventions in other low-resource countries with similar settings.

Resource-oriented interventions for patients with severe mental illnesses in low- and middle-income countries: trials in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness (SMI) presents a major burden to societies worldwide. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often do not have sufficient financial resources and qualified staff to provide extensive specialised services for outpatients with SMI. Our research therefore aims to explore and test low-cost interventions that use existing resources in routine patient-clinician meetings, families and communities. METHODS: In Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda, three psychosocial interventions will be tested, i.e. making patient-clinician meetings therapeutically effective through DIALOG+, family involvement in multi-family group meetings, and support for patients in befriending schemes with volunteers. All interventions will be provided to patients with SMI, delivered over a six-month period and evaluated with assessments at baseline and after six and 12 months. We will conduct nine trials including non-controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Core outcome criteria will be used across all studies. However, details of study delivery and additional outcome criteria vary to accommodate local contexts, interests and priorities. The studies will be analysed separately, but with the option to compare and combine findings. DISCUSSION: The approach provides the opportunity to learn from commonalities and differences in the results and experiences across the three resource-oriented approaches and the three countries. If successfully implemented the studies can lead to more extensive research and are expected to inform health policies and clinical practice of community care for patients with SMI in the three participating countries and other LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: All RCTs were registered prospectively and non-randomised trials retrospectively within the ISRCTN Registry. DIALOG+ in Uganda: ISRCTN25146122 (Date of Registration: 20/11/2018, prospective); DIALOG+ in Colombia: ISRCTN83333181 (Date of Registration: 20/11/2018, prospective); DIALOG+ in Bosnia-Herzegovina: ISRCTN13347129 (Date of Registration: 20/11/2018, prospective); Volunteer Support in Uganda: ISRCTN86689958 (Date of Registration: 04/03/2019, retrospective); Volunteer Support in Colombia: ISRCTN72241383 (Date of Registration: 04/03/2019, retrospective);Volunteer Support in Bosnia-Herzegovina: ISRCTN51290984 (Date of Registration: 20/11/2018, prospective); Family Involvement in Uganda: ISRCTN78948497 (Date of Registration: 04/03/2019, retrospective); Family Involvement in Colombia: ISRCTN11440755 (Date of Registration: 04/03/2019, retrospective); Family Involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina: ISRCTN13347355 (Date of Registration: 20/11/2018, prospective).

Perceived sustainability of psychosocial treatment in low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is an evidence-based, generic, cost-saving and easily deliverable psychosocial intervention, adaptable to clinicians' personal manner of interaction with patients. It was implemented in mental health services in five low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe during a 12-month randomised-controlled trial (IMPULSE) to improve the effectiveness of out-patient treatment for people with psychotic disorders. AIMS: To investigate barriers and facilitators to the perceived sustainability of DIALOG+ that has been successfully implemented as a part of the IMPULSE project. METHOD: Three months after the IMPULSE trial's end, perceived sustainability of the DIALOG+ intervention was assessed via a short survey of clinicians and patients who took part in the trial. Quantitative data collected from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; content analysis assessed qualitative survey data. The views and experiences of key informants (patients, clinicians and healthcare policy influencers) regarding the sustainability and scale-up of DIALOG+ were further explored through semi-structured interviews. These data were explored using framework analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians mostly appreciated the comprehensiveness of DIALOG+, and patients described DIALOG+ meetings as empowering and motivating. The barrier most commonly identified by key informants was availability of financial resources; the most important facilitators were the clinically relevant structure and comprehensiveness of the DIALOG+ intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Participants showed a willingness to sustain the implementation of DIALOG+. It is important to maintain collaboration with healthcare policy influencers to improve implementation of DIALOG+ across different levels of healthcare systems and ensure availability of resources for implementing psychosocial interventions such as DIALOG+.

Feasibility, experiences and outcomes of using DIALOG+ in primary care to improve quality of life and mental distress of patients with chronic conditions: an exploratory non-controlled trial in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is a resource-oriented and evidence-based intervention to improve quality of life and reduce mental distress. While it has been extensively studied in mental health care, there is little evidence for how to use it in primary care settings for patients with chronic physical conditions. Considering that DIALOG+ is used in existing routine patient-clinician meetings and is very low cost, it may have the potential to help large numbers of patients with chronic physical conditions, mental distress and poor quality of life who are treated in primary care. This is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where resources for specialised services for such patients are scarce or non-existent. METHODS: An exploratory non-controlled trial will be conducted to primarily assess the feasibility and acceptability and, secondarily, outcomes of delivering DIALOG+ to patients with chronic physical conditions and poor quality of life in primary care settings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda. Thirty patients in each country will receive DIALOG+ up to three times in monthly meetings over a 3-month period. Feasibility will be assessed by determining the extent to which the intervention is implemented as planned. Experiences will be captured in interviews and focus groups with care providers and participants to understand acceptability. Quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression, objective social situation and health status will be assessed at baseline and again after the three-session intervention. DISCUSSION: This study will inform our understanding of the extent to which DIALOG+ may be used in the routine care of patients with chronic physical conditions in different primary care settings. The findings of this exploratory trial can inform the design of future full randomised controlled trials of DIALOG+ in primary care settings in LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: All studies were registered prospectively (on 02/12/2020 for Uganda and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 01/12/2020 for Colombia) within the ISRCTN Registry. ISRCTN17003451 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), ISRCTN14018729 (Colombia) and ISRCTN50335796 (Uganda). Protocol version and date: v2.0; 28/07/2020 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), v0.3 02/08/2020 (Colombia) and v1.0, 05/11/2020 (Uganda).

Effectiveness of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines has not been comprehensively summarised. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) for adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines. METHODS: We searched healthcare databases and grey literature from 11 June 2009 to 12 November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed titles and abstracts to identify studies for full review. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the pooled effect size of vaccination compared to placebo or no vaccination for crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) to prevent laboratory confirmed influenza illness (LCI) and related hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-pooled OR)∗100. Narrative synthesis was undertaken where meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: We identified 9229 studies of which 38 at moderate risk of bias met protocol eligibility criteria; 23 were suitable for meta-analysis. Pooled adjusted VE against LCI with adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines both reached statistical significance (adjuvanted: VE=80%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 59-90%; unadjuvanted: VE=66%; 95% CI 47-78%); in planned secondary analyses, VE in adults often failed to reach statistical significance and pooled point estimates were lower than observed in children. Overall pooled adjusted VE against hospitalization was 61% (95% CI 14-82%); in planned secondary analyses, adjusted VE attained statistical significance in adults aged 18-64years and children for adjuvanted vaccines. Adjuvanted vaccines were significantly more effective in children compared to adults for both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvanted and unadjuvanted monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were both effective in preventing LCI. Overall, the vaccines were also effective against influenza-related hospitalization. For both outcomes adjuvanted vaccines were more effective in children than in adults.