Gender differences in coerced patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent increase of research interest in involuntary treatment and the use of coercive measures, gender differences among coerced schizophrenia patients still remain understudied. It is well recognized that there are gender differences both in biological correlates and clinical presentations in schizophrenia, which is one of the most common diagnoses among patients who are treated against their will. The extent to which these differences may result in a difference in the use of coercive measures for men and women during the acute phase of the disease has not been studied. METHODS: 291 male and 231 female coerced patients with schizophrenia were included in this study, which utilized data gathered by the EUNOMIA project (European Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry and Harmonization of Best Clinical Practice) and was carried out as a multi-centre prospective cohort study at 13 centers in 12 European countries. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, social functioning and aggressive behavior in patients who received any form of coercive measure (seclusion and/or forced medication and/or physical restraint) during their hospital stay were assessed. RESULTS: When compared to the non-coerced inpatient population, there was no difference in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics across either gender. However coerced female patients did show a worse social functioning than their coerced male counterparts, a finding which contrasts with the non-coerced inpatient population. Moreover, patterns of aggressive behavior were different between men and women, such that women exhibited aggressive behavior more frequently, but men committed severe aggressive acts more frequently. Staff used forced medication in women more frequently and physical restraint and seclusion more frequently with men. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study point towards a higher threshold of aggressive behavior the treatment of women with coercive measures. This may be because less serious aggressive actions trigger the application of coercive measures in men. Moreover coerced women showed diminished social functioning, and more importantly more severe symptoms from the "excitement/hostile" cluster in contrast to coerced men. National and international recommendation on coercive treatment practices should include appropriate consideration of the evidence of gender differences in clinical presentation and aggressive behaviors found in inpatient populations.

How to improve clinical practice on forced medication in psychiatric practice: Suggestions from the EUNOMIA European multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The decision to adopt forced medication in psychiatric care is particularly relevant from a clinical and ethical viewpoint. The European Commission has funded the EUNOMIA study in order to develop European recommendations for good clinical practice on coercive measures, including forced medication. METHODS: The recommendations on forced medication have been developed in 11 countries with the involvement of national clinical leaders, key-professionals and stakeholders' representatives. The national recommendations have been subsequently summarized into a European shared document. RESULTS: Several cross-national differences exist in the use of forced medication. These differences are mainly due to legal and policy making aspects, rather than to clinical situations. In fact, countries agreed that forced medication can be allowed only if the following criteria are present: 1) a therapeutic intervention is urgently needed; 2) the voluntary intake of medications is consistently rejected; 3) the patient is not aware of his/her condition. Patients' dignity, privacy and safety shall be preserved at all times. CONCLUSION: The results of our study show the need of developing guidelines on the use of forced medication in psychiatric practice, that should be considered as the last resort and only when other therapeutic option have failed.

Symptoms associated with victimization in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders.

BACKGROUND: Patients with psychoses have an increased risk of becoming victims of violence. Previous studies have suggested that higher symptom levels are associated with a raised risk of becoming a victim of physical violence. There has been, however, no evidence on the type of symptoms that are linked with an increased risk of recent victimization. METHODS: Data was taken from two studies on involuntarily admitted patients, one national study in England and an international one in six other European countries. In the week following admission, trained interviewers asked patients whether they had been victims of physical violence in the year prior to admission, and assessed symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Only patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or related disorders (ICD-10 F20-29) were included in the analysis which was conducted separately for the two samples. Symptom levels assessed on the BPRS subscales were tested as predictors of victimization. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: Data from 383 patients in the English sample and 543 patients in the European sample was analysed. Rates of victimization were 37.8% and 28.0% respectively. In multivariable models, the BPRS manic subscale was significantly associated with victimization in both samples. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of manic symptoms indicate a raised risk of being a victim of violence in involuntary patients with schizophrenia and related disorders. This might be explained by higher activity levels, impaired judgement or poorer self-control in patients with manic symptoms. Such symptoms should be specifically considered in risk assessments.

Patient characteristics predicting better treatment outcomes in day hospitals compared with inpatient wards.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify patient characteristics associated with differences in outcomes of acute treatment in day hospitals and conventional hospital wards. METHODS: Data were from the European Day Hospital Evaluation (EDEN) (2000-2003), a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing acute treatment in day hospitals and conventional wards in five European countries. All 880 adult patients in the EDEN study who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, and behavioral syndromes (ICD-10 codes F20-F59) and complete data on baseline variables were included. Outcomes were symptom levels (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), subjective quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life), and social disability (Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule) assessed at discharge and at three and 12 months postdischarge. Mixed- and main-effects models of interaction effects between patient characteristics and outcomes were generated. RESULTS: Patients' age, diagnostic category, and living status (alone or not) did not predict differences in outcomes between the two settings. However, patients with higher symptom levels at baseline experienced greater symptom improvements after treatment on a ward, and those with more years of education had greater symptom improvements after day hospital treatment. Female patients had more favorable social disability outcomes after day hospital treatment, but no difference between the two settings was found for male patients. CONCLUSIONS: More severe symptoms may be a reason for admission to acute treatment on a conventional ward rather than a day hospital. Female patients and those with more education may benefit more from acute treatment in day hospitals.

Coerced hospital admission and symptom change--a prospective observational multi-centre study.

INTRODUCTION: Coerced admission to psychiatric hospitals, defined by legal status or patient's subjective experience, is common. Evidence on clinical outcomes however is limited. This study aimed to assess symptom change over a three month period following coerced admission and identify patient characteristics associated with outcomes. METHOD: At study sites in 11 European countries consecutive legally involuntary patients and patients with a legally voluntary admission who however felt coerced, were recruited and assessed by independent researchers within the first week after admission. Symptoms were assessed on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Patients were re-assessed after one and three months. RESULTS: The total sample consisted of 2326 legally coerced patients and 764 patients with a legally voluntary admission who felt coerced. Symptom levels significantly improved over time. In a multivariable analysis, higher baseline symptoms, being unemployed, living alone, repeated hospitalisation, being legally a voluntary patient but feeling coerced, and being initially less satisfied with treatment were all associated with less symptom improvement after one month and, other than initial treatment satisfaction, also after three months. The diagnostic group was not linked with outcomes. DISCUSSION: On average patients show significant but limited symptom improvements after coerced hospital admission, possibly reflecting the severity of the underlying illnesses. Social factors, but not the psychiatric diagnosis, appear important predictors of outcomes. Legally voluntary patients who feel coerced may have a poorer prognosis than legally involuntary patients and deserve attention in research and clinical practice.

Loss to follow-up in longitudinal psychiatric research.

AIMS: To analyse factors that differentiate patients who attend follow-up assessments versus those who do not, and to identify predictors for drop-out within the context of the European Day Hospital Evaluation Study (EDEN-Study). METHODS: The EDEN-Study, a multi-center RCT comparing acute psychiatric day care with inpatient care, required re-assessment of patients at discharge, 3 and 12 months after discharge. Follow-up rates varied between 54.0% and 99.5%. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not attend follow-up were analysed using uni- and multivariate statistical methods. RESULTS: Univariate analyses showed differences between patients regarding study site, treatment setting, living situation, employment, age, psychopathological symptoms and treatment satisfaction. They were not confirmed in multivariate analyses thus meaningful predictors of drop-out could not be identified. CONCLUSIONS: Results emphasize the general need to compare patients re-assessed and not re-assessed in terms of their most relevant socio-demographic and clinical variables to assess the generalizability of results.

Are day hospitals effective for acutely ill psychiatric patients? A European multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Acute psychiatric day care has been proposed as an alternative to conventional inpatient care, yet the evidence of its effectiveness is inconsistent and based only on single-site studies in 3 countries. The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to establish the effectiveness of acute day hospital care in a large sample across a range of mental health care systems. METHOD: The trial was conducted from December 2000 to September 2003 in 5 European countries, with a sample of 1117 voluntarily admitted patients. Immediately before or very shortly after admission to the participating psychiatric facilities, patients were randomly allocated to treatment in a day hospital or an inpatient ward. Psychopathology, treatment satisfaction, subjective quality of life, and social disabilities were assessed at admission, at discharge, and 3 and 12 months after discharge. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using fixed-effects linear models with structured error covariance matrices and covariates. RESULTS: Day hospital care was as effective as conventional inpatient care with respect to psychopathologic symptoms, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life. It was more effective on social functioning at discharge and at the 3- and 12-month follow-up assessments. CONCLUSION: This study, which has more than doubled the existing evidence base, has shown that day hospital care is as effective on clinical outcomes as conventional inpatient care and more effective on social outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00153959.

[Practice recommendation for administering mechanical restraint during acute psychiatric hospitalization]. / Eine Empfehlung zur Durchführungspraxis von Fixierungen im Rahmen der stationären psychiatrischen Akutbehandlung.

OBJECTIVE: One aim of the multi-site EUNOMIA-project was to establish a European recommendation for the best clinical practice of administering coercive measures. This article reports the results on mechanical restraint. METHODS: Local expert groups in 11 countries worked out their recommendations mostly in semi-structured group discussions. By use of a system of categories developed with a content-analytical method, these national documents were comparatively assessed, and integrated into a common clinical recommendation. RESULTS: Legal and clinical pre-conditions for the use of mechanical restraint, specific instructions for the clinical behaviour of different professional groups, ethical issues, and procedural aspects of quality assurance are reported in detail. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with established clinical guidelines, similarities concerning basic principles of clinical use appear to be higher than similarities concerning practical details. Future development of guidelines for the best practice of coercive measures urgently needs the use of advanced methodology.

The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data.

Previous national research has shown significant variation in several aspects of coercive treatment measures in psychiatry. The EUNOMIA project, an international study funded by the European Commission, aims to assess the clinical practice of these measures and their outcomes. Its naturalistic and epidemiological design is being implemented at 13 centres in 12 European countries. This article describes the design of the study and provides preliminary data on the catchment areas, staff, available facilities and modalities of care at the participating centres.

A comparison of psychiatric day hospitals in five European countries: implications of their diversity for day hospital research.

OBJECTIVE: As the use of "day hospitals" increases, conceptual models of these services are changing dramatically across Europe. Therefore, the need arises for mental health services research to assess this process cross-nationally in a standardised and systematic way. Such research approaches should seek to maximise the generalisability of results from high-quality (e.g. randomised controlled) single- or multi-site trials assessing specific models of day hospital care. METHOD: Using a self-developed structured questionnaire, the European Day Hospital Evaluation (EDEN) study group carried out national surveys of the characteristics of day hospitals for general psychiatric patients in Germany, England, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, during the period 2001--2002. RESULTS: Response rates varied from 52 to 91 %. Findings show that day hospitals have no consistent profile of structural and procedural features. Similarities across countries focus on three main issues: on average, consideration of concepts oriented toward providing acute treatment are equivalent; disorders associated with disabled functioning in everyday life, high risk of somatic complications, and need for behaviour control are excluded to a comparable degree; and some core therapeutic activities are consistent with the main approaches of social psychiatry. Identified according to self-rated conceptions and extended with data from individual hospital's statistics on the clientele in 2000, three clusters of limited selectivity subdivide the services. One category focuses mainly on rehabilitative tasks; two categories are oriented toward providing acute treatment as an alternative to inpatient care, but combine this either with rehabilitative tasks or with equal additional functions of shortening inpatient treatment and providing psychotherapy. The distribution of services across these three clusters varies significantly in the five European countries. CONCLUSION: Future day hospital studies should always clarify the type of services being assessed. To fully consider the impact of their results, the current national and international health policy environment of these services should be taken into account. Such surveys require enhanced methodology, however, in order to identify clear, distinct categories of services characterised by overlapping programme functions, and to increase the generalisability of valid results from single- or multi-site trials.