Economic Evaluation of the SOS Training to Reduce Victimization in Dual Diagnosis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Economic evaluations of interventions for dual diagnosis patients are scarce. A recent randomized controlled trial has supported the effectiveness of the Self-wise, Otherwise, Streetwise (SOS) training to reduce victimization in dual diagnosis patients. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the SOS training as an add-on to care as usual (CAU). METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside the SOS trial. Participants were 250 dual diagnosis patients recruited at three locations from a large urban psychiatric service in the Netherlands. The main outcomes were treatment response for victimization and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both costs and effects were measured across a 14-month follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between CAU + SOS and CAU in total costs (mean difference €4,859; 95% CI [-€4,795 to €14,513]) and QALY gains (mean difference 0.0012; 95% CI [-0.05 to 0.05]). Significantly more participants in CAU + SOS achieved treatment response for victimization compared to CAU (68% vs. 54%; mean difference 0.14; 95% CI [0.02 to 0.26]). The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated an 83% likelihood that CAU + SOS resulted in a higher treatment response rate for victimization at higher costs compared to CAU. The cost-utility analysis indicated that adding SOS-training to CAU is probably not cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay levels for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: At a societal willingness-to-pay of €38,000 or more per extra treatment responder, adding SOS-training to usual care is probably more attractive than usual care alone with regard to cost-effectiveness. This is a considerable willingness to pay. However, the direct costs of offering the SOS training are expected to be minor. Our findings should be interpreted with caution due to the short follow-up period and absence of data on potential reductions in police and judicial costs other than prison costs.

Homesick: residential and care patterns in patients with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the residential and care settings of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) are a concern because of the large variety of possible negative consequences. This study describes patterns of changes in the residential and care settings of SMI patients and explores associations between these changes, sociodemographics, and clinical characteristics. METHODS: From January 2006 to January 2012, all data relating to changes in residential and/or care setting by SMI patients (N = 262) were collected from electronic case files. Data covering psychopathology, substance use, and medication adherence were assessed in 2006. RESULTS: There were more changes in the residential than in the care setting. In 6 years, only 22% of our sample did not move, 23% changed residence once, 19% twice, 10% three times, and 26% four or more times. Substance use predicted changes of care and/or residential setting and rehospitalisation. The severity of negative symptoms predicted rehospitalisation and duration of hospitalisation. Disorganisation symptoms predicted the duration of hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with SMI changed residential and/or care settings several times in 6 years. Patients with substance use or severe negative and disorganisation symptoms may need more intensive and customised treatment. Further research is needed to investigate prevention programmes for highly-frequent movers.

Victimisation in adults with severe mental illness: prevalence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a severe mental illness (SMI) are more likely to experience victimisation than the general population. AIMS: To examine the prevalence of victimisation in people with SMI, and the relationship between symptoms, treatment facility and indices of substance use/misuse and perpetration, in comparison with the general population. METHOD: Victimisation was assessed among both randomly selected patients with SMI (n = 216) and the general population (n = 10 865). RESULTS: Compared with the general population, a high prevalence of violent victimisation was found among the SMI group (22.7% v. 8.5%). Compared with out-patients and patients in a sheltered housing facility, in-patients were most often victimised (violent crimes: 35.3%; property crimes: 47.1%). Risk factors among the SMI group for violent victimisation included young age and disorganisation, and risk factors for property crimes included being an in-patient, disorganisation and cannabis use. The SMI group were most often assaulted by someone they knew. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers should be aware that patients with SMI are at risk of violent victimisation. Interventions need to be developed to reduce this vulnerability.

Prescriptive factors for intensive home treatment in acute psychiatry: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive home treatment (IHT) aims to prevent psychiatric hospitalisation. Although this intervention is well tested, it is still unknown for whom this intervention works best. Therefore, this study aims to explore prescriptive factors that moderate the effect of IHT compared to care as usual (CAU) on symptom severity. METHODS: Using data from a randomised controlled trial, 198 participants that experience an exacerbation of acute psychiatric symptoms were included in this secondary analysis. In order to maximise clinical relevance, generally available environmental and clinical baseline factors were included as tentative moderators: age, gender, employment status, domestic situation, psychiatric disorders, psychological symptoms, psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other substance use. The outcome variable symptom severity was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and collected at 26 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine which participants' characteristics moderate the effect of IHT on the total BPRS score. RESULTS: Our results suggest that being employed (B = 0.28, SE = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.53, p = 0.03) at baseline seems to have a moderation effect, which result in lower symptom severity scores at 26 weeks follow-up for patients who received IHT. This effect was not found at 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the number of factors tested, there is no evidence for robust outcome moderators of the effect of IHT versus CAU. Our conclusion is therefore that IHT can be offered to a diverse target population with comparable clinical results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered (date of registration: 2016-11-23) at the international clinical trials registry platform (NTR6151).

Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of research on the cost-effectiveness of intensive home treatment (IHT), an alternative to psychiatric hospitalisation for patients experiencing psychiatric crises. We therefore present a health economic evaluation alongside a pre-randomised controlled trial of IHT compared to care as usual (CAU). METHOD: Patients were pre-randomised to IHT or CAU using a double-consent open-label Zelen design. For the cost-utility analysis, the EuroQol 5-dimensional instrument was used. The cost-effectiveness was assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). RESULTS: Data of 198 patients showed that each additional QALY gained from offering IHT instead of CAU was on average associated with an extra cost of €48,003. There is a 38% likelihood that IHT will lead to more QALYs at lower costs compared to CAU. An improvement of one additional point on the BPRS by offering IHT instead of CAU was associated with an extra cost of €19,203. There is a 38% likelihood that IHT will lead to higher BPRS score improvements at lower costs. Based on the NICE willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 (€35,000) per QALY, IHT could potentially be considered cost-effective with a likelihood of 55-60% when viewed from a societal perspective, and > 75% from a health care perspective. CONCLUSIONS: IHT appears slightly more attractive in terms of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness than CAU, although differences in both costs and effects are small especially when viewed from the societal costs perspective. From the health care sector costs perspective, IHT has a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to CAU. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR6151.

Police Encounters, Agitation, Diagnosis, and Employment Predict Psychiatric Hospitalisation of Intensive Home Treatment Patients During a Psychiatric Crisis.

Objective: This study aims to determine factors associated with psychiatric hospitalisation of patients treated for an acute psychiatric crisis who had access to intensive home treatment (IHT). Methods: This study was performed using data from a randomised controlled trial. Interviews, digital health records and eight internationally validated questionnaires were used to collect data from patients on the verge of an acute psychiatric crisis enrolled from two mental health organisations. Thirty-eight factors were assigned to seven risk domains. The seven domains are "sociodemographic", "social engagement", "diagnosis and psychopathology", "aggression", "substance use", "mental health services" and "quality of life". Multiple logistic regression analysis (MLRA) was conducted to assess how much pseudo variance in hospitalisation these seven domains explained. Forward MLRA was used to identify individual risk factors associated with hospitalisation. Risks were expressed in terms of relative risk (RR) and absolute risk difference (ARD). Results: Data from 183 participants were used. The mean age of the participants was 40.03 (SD 12.71), 57.4% was female, 78.9% was born in the Netherlands and 51.4% was employed. The range of explained variance for the domains related to "psychopathology and care" was between 0.34 and 0.08. The "aggression" domain explained the highest proportion (R 2 = 0.34) of the variance in hospitalisation. "Quality of life" had the lowest explained proportion of variance (R 2 = 0.05). The forward MLRA identified four predictive factors for hospitalisation: previous contact with the police or judiciary (OR = 7.55, 95% CI = 1.10-51.63; ARD = 0.24; RR = 1.47), agitation (OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.02-7.72; ARD = 0.22; RR = 1.36), schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (OR = 22.22, 95% CI = 1.74-284.54; ARD = 0.31; RR = 1.50) and employment status (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.01-0.63; ARD = -0.28; RR = 0.66). Conclusion: IHT teams should be aware of patients who have histories of encounters with the police/judiciary or were agitated at outset of treatment. As those patients benefit less from IHT due to the higher risk of hospitalisation. Moreover, type of diagnoses and employment status play an important role in predicting hospitalisation.

The effects of intensive home treatment on self-efficacy in patients recovering from a psychiatric crisis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated whether providing intensive home treatment (IHT) to patients experiencing a psychiatric crisis has more effect on self-efficacy when compared to care as usual (CAU). Self-efficacy is a psychological concept closely related to one of the aims of IHT. Additionally, differential effects on self-efficacy among patients with different mental disorders and associations between self-efficacy and symptomatic recovery or quality of life were examined. METHODS: Data stem from a Zelen double consent randomised controlled trial (RCT), which assesses the effects of IHT compared to CAU on patients who experienced a psychiatric crisis. Data were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks follow-up. Self-efficacy was measured using the Mental Health Confidence Scale. The 5-dimensional EuroQol instrument and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) were used to measure quality of life and symptomatic recovery, respectively. We used linear mixed modelling to estimate the associations with self-efficacy. RESULTS: Data of 142 participants were used. Overall, no difference between IHT and CAU was found with respect to self-efficacy (B = - 0.08, SE = 0.15, p = 0.57), and self-efficacy did not change over the period of 26 weeks (B = - 0.01, SE = 0.12, t (103.95) = - 0.06, p = 0.95). However, differential effects on self-efficacy over time were found for patients with different mental disorders (F(8, 219.33) = 3.75, p < 0.001). Additionally, self-efficacy was strongly associated with symptomatic recovery (total BPRS B = - 0.10, SE = 0.02, p < 0.00) and quality of life (B = 0.14, SE = 0.01, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although self-efficacy was associated with symptomatic recovery and quality of life, IHT does not have a supplementary effect on self-efficacy when compared to CAU. This result raises the question whether, and how, crisis care could be adapted to enhance self-efficacy, keeping in mind the development of self-efficacy in depressive, bipolar, personality, and schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. The findings should be considered with some caution. This study lacked sufficient power to test small changes in self-efficacy and some mental disorders had a small sample size. Trial registration This trial is registered at Trialregister.nl, number NL6020.

Factors associated with victimization in dual diagnosis patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a substance use disorder and co-occurring mental disorder are prone to victimization. There is a lack of research identifying variables related to violent and property victimization in this high risk group. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with violent and property victimization in male and female dual diagnosis patients in order to identify targets for prevention. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, victimization and demographic, clinical and psychological characteristics were assessed in 243 treatment-seeking patients with dual diagnosis. Patients were recruited in an addiction-psychiatry clinic and an allied outpatient care facility in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. RESULTS: In a multiple logistic regression analysis, violent victimization was independently associated with younger age, female gender, violent offending and a self-sacrificing and overly accommodating interpersonal style (p<0.001; χ2=108.83, d.f.=8, R2=0.49) in dual diagnosis patients. In male patients, violent victimization was independently associated with younger age, violent offending and a self-sacrificing and overly accommodating interpersonal style (p<0.001; χ2=91.90, d.f.=7, R2=0.56). In female patients, violent victimization was independently positively associated with homelessness, violent offending, a domineering/controlling interpersonal style, and negatively associated with being socially inhibited and cold/distant (p<0.001; χ2=34.08, d.f.=4, R2=0.53). Property victimization was independently associated with theft offending (p<0.001, χ2=26.99, d.f.=5, R2=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of victimization in dual diagnosis patients and its related problems, preventive interventions should be developed. Interventions should target interpersonal skills to decrease vulnerability to victimization, address the overlap between victimization and offending and incorporate gender-specific elements.

Risk of Criminal Victimisation in Outpatients with Common Mental Health Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Crime victimisation is a serious problem in psychiatric patients. However, research has focused on patients with severe mental illness and few studies exist that address victimisation in other outpatient groups, such as patients with depression. Due to large differences in methodology of the studies that address crime victimisation, a comparison of prevalence between psychiatric diagnostic groups is hard to make. Objectives of this study were to determine and compare one-year prevalence of violent and non-violent criminal victimisation among outpatients from different diagnostic psychiatric groups and to examine prevalence differences with the general population. METHOD: Criminal victimisation prevalence was measured in 300 outpatients living in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with outpatients with depressive disorder (n = 102), substance use disorder (SUD, n = 106) and severe mental illness (SMI, n = 92) using a National Crime Victimisation Survey, and compared with a matched general population sample (n = 10865). RESULTS: Of all outpatients, 61% reported experiencing some kind of victimisation over the past year; 33% reported violent victimisation (3.5 times more than the general population) and 36% reported property crimes (1.2 times more than the general population). Outpatients with depression (67%) and SUD (76%) were victimised more often than SMI outpatients (39%). Younger age and hostile behaviour were associated with violent victimisation, while being male and living alone were associated with non-violent victimisation. Moreover, SUD was associated with both violent and non-violent victimisation. CONCLUSION: Outpatients with depression, SUD, and SMI are at increased risk of victimisation compared to the general population. Furthermore, our results indicate that victimisation of violent and non-violent crimes is more common in outpatients with depression and SUD than in outpatients with SMI living independently in the community.