A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation.

The Clubhouse Model has been in existence for over sixty-five years; however, a review that synthesizes the literature on the model is needed. The current study makes use of the existing research to conduct a systematic review of articles providing a comprehensive understanding of what is known about the Clubhouse Model, to identify the best evidence available, as well as areas that would benefit from further study. Findings are summarized and evidence is classified by outcome domains. Fifty-two articles met the selection criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT's), quasi-experimental studies, or observational studies for domains of employment (N = 29); quality of life/satisfaction (N = 10); reductions in psychiatric hospitalization(s) (N = 10); social relationships (N = 10); education (N = 3); and health promotion activities (N = 2). RCT results support the efficacy of the Clubhouse Model in promoting employment, reducing hospitalization(s), and improving quality of life. Quasi-experimental and observational studies offer support in education and social domains. The findings from this review indicate that Clubhouses are a promising practice but additional studies using rigorous methods that report the strength of the outcomes are needed to evaluate Clubhouse programs with fidelity to the Clubhouse Model.

Why is therapeutic misconception so prevalent?

Therapeutic misconception (TM)-when clinical research participants fail to adequately grasp the difference between participating in a clinical trial and receiving ordinary clinical care-has long been recognized as a significant problem in consent to clinical trials. We suggest that TM does not primarily reflect inadequate disclosure or participants' incompetence. Instead, TM arises from divergent primary cognitive frames. The researchers' frame places the clinical trial in the context of scientific designs for assessing intervention efficacy. In contrast, most participants have a cognitive frame that is personal and focused primarily on their medical problems. To illustrate this, we draw on interview material from both clinical researchers and participants in clinical trials. We suggest that reducing TM requires encouraging subjects to adjust their frame, not just add information to their existing frame. What is necessary is a scientific reframing of participation in a clinical trial.

Therapeutic misconception in research subjects: development and validation of a measure.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception (TM), which occurs when research subjects fail to appreciate the distinction between the imperatives of clinical research and ordinary treatment, may undercut the process of obtaining meaningful consent to clinical research participation. Previous studies have found that TM is widespread, but progress in addressing TM has been stymied by the absence of a validated method for assessing its presence. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to develop and validate a theoretically grounded measure of TM, assess its diagnostic accuracy, and test previous findings regarding TM's prevalence. METHODS: A total of 220 participants were recruited from clinical trials at four academic medical centers in the United States. Participants completed a 28-item Likert-type questionnaire to assess the presence of beliefs associated with TM, and a semistructured TM interview designed to elicit their perceptions of the nature of the clinical trial in which they were participating. Data from the questionnaires were subjected to factor analysis, and items with poor factor loadings were excluded. This resulted in a 10-item scale, with three strongly correlated factors and excellent internal consistency; the fit indices of the model across 10 training sets were consistent with the original results, suggesting a stable factor solution. RESULTS: The scale was validated against the TM interview, with significantly higher scores among subjects coded as displaying evidence of TM. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis based on a 10-fold internal cross-validation yielded area under the ROC (AUC) = 0.682 for any evidence of TM. When sensitivity (0.72) and specificity (0.61) were both optimized, positive predictive value was 0.65 and negative predictive value was 0.68, with a positive likelihood ratio of 1.89 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.47. In all, 50.5% (n = 101) of the participants manifested evidence of TM on the TM interview, a somewhat lower rate than in most previous studies. LIMITATIONS: The predictive value of the scale compared with the 'gold standard' clinical interview is modest, although similar to other instruments based on self-report assessing states of mind rather than discrete symptoms. Thus, although the scale can offer evidence of which subjects are at risk for distortions in their decisions and to what degree, it will not allow researchers to conclude definitively that TM is present in a given subject. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a reliable and valid TM scale, even with modest predictive power, should permit investigators in clinical trials to identify subjects with tendencies to misinterpret the nature of the situation and to provide additional information to them. It should also stimulate research on how best to decrease TM and facilitate meaningful informed consent to clinical research.

Disparities in opioid prescribing for patients with psychiatric diagnoses presenting with pain to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this investigation is to discover whether or not patients with psychiatric diagnoses are less likely to be prescribed opioids for pain in emergency departments compared with other patients. METHODS: Pain-related visits to US emergency departments were identified using reason-for-visit and physician diagnosis codes for 13 years (1993-2005) of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The outcome measure was the prescription or administration of an opioid analgesic. RESULTS: Roughly 10 million pain-related visits were made by persons with psychiatric diagnoses in the USA between 1993 and 2005. Across all years, only 18% (95% CI 16 to 20) of pain-related visits by patients with psychiatric diagnoses resulted in an opioid prescription, whereas 33% (95% CI 32 to 34) of visits by other patients did. Lower prescription rates for patients with psychiatric diagnoses were seen for every year of the survey and this difference occurred at every level of pain severity. Controlling for confounding factors did not attenuate this difference. In a multivariate model, patients with psychiatric diagnoses were about half as likely as other patients to be prescribed opiates (adjusted OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.56). Major limitations of the study include the uncertain precision of psychiatric and drug/alcohol diagnoses and the lack of detail about each patient visit. CONCLUSION: Having a psychiatric diagnosis was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an opioid among persons presenting with pain to the ED.

Reducing the Single IRB Burden: Streamlining Electronic IRB Systems.

Electronic institutional review board systems (eIRBs) have become an integral component in ensuring compliance with Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) and IRB requirements. Despite this, few of these systems are configured to administer the single IRB (sIRB) process mandated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for multisite research. We interviewed 103 sIRB administrators, chairs, members, and staff members about their experiences with sIRB multisite research review. We observed three main obstacles to adapting existing eIRB systems to accommodate the sIRB process: (1) Existing systems are not designed for sIRBs and are not configured to administer sIRB responsibilities, (2) they are not interoperable, and (3) resources to improve existing systems are lacking. Our findings suggest that IRBs that act as an sIRB will need major changes to their electronic systems in order to accommodate sIRB processes. These difficulties threaten both the ability of IRBs to focus on ethical rather than bureaucratic problems and the efficiency of multisite trials.

When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function.

Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model.

A good deal of policy and practice in human subjects research aims to ensure that when subjects consent to research, they do so voluntarily. To date, however, voluntariness and its impairment have been poorly conceptualized and studied. The legal doctrine of informed consent could provide a useful model.

Why does informed consent fail? A discourse analytic approach.

Informed consent often fails to meet the intended goals that a prospective subject should understand fully and choose autonomously to participate in research. The current study is an attempt to understand such failures by applying linguistic methods of discourse analysis to the transcripts of informed consent interviews. Elements of conversation and of the frame of discourse were analyzed to understand how the participants shaped their spoken interaction during the interview. We looked at the degree to which the subject appeared to be fully informed, at the problem of therapeutic misconception, and at the degree to which the subject was helped to explore concerns relevant to the choice at hand. We found that lapses or miscommunications could be understood specifically in terms of conversational elements and framing. This kind of detailed, language-based analysis is an alternative to approaches that are more abstract and inferential, such as those that are based upon the attitudes or the cognitive performance of speakers. We discuss possible educational and research implications of this approach.

How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest: Findings From a National Interview Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are important ethical concerns because they may affect scientific decision making, research integrity, and the safety and fairness of studies. No research to date has examined COIs of single institutional review boards (sIRBs), which are now mandated by the National Institutes of Health, and will be by the revised Common Rule in 2020, for all multisite research. This study investigated how different types of sIRBs manage their own COIs by documenting existing processes for and comparing commercial, government, and academic sIRBs. METHOD: One hundred three personnel from 20 commercial, government, or academic sIRBs participated in semistructured interviews about their processes for and experiences with managing COIs when conducting multisite research review. RESULTS: Variability in COI management policies exist across types of sIRBs. Commercial sIRBs were aware of their own COIs given their for-profit model, and managed them by using firewalls, relying on external reviewers, and turning down potential clients. Government sIRBs described unique COIs stemming from the same agency funding the sIRB and the research being reviewed. They addressed these by discussing concerns about COIs, using firewalls, relying on nonaffiliated reviewers, and having broad COI policies. In contrast to commercial and government sIRBs, academic sIRBs did not report any specific policies to manage their COIs, which are similar to those of local IRBs. CONCLUSIONS: As sIRBs become increasingly common, researchers will need to weigh the different COIs inherent to each type of sIRB. Additionally, academic sIRBs may consider implementing specific policies for managing their COIs.

Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.

New federal policies require single IRB review for multisite studies, but many questions remain about how these IRBs will use local knowledge. The findings from our study, the first to examine how single IRBs perceive needs for local knowledge, reveal several challenges. Study respondents identified four potentially relevant types of local knowledge: about culture and linguistics, about geography and socioeconomics, about the researchers, and about the institutions. Such knowledge can potentially be obtained through local sites, but single IRBs may be unaware of potentially relevant local information, and lack of informal relationships may impede single IRBs' reviews and interactions with researchers. While a recent, commonly used, standardized single-IRB form asks three basic questions about local information, our findings suggest potential needs for additional information and, thus, have important implications for practice, policy, and research.

A direct comparison of research decision-making capacity: schizophrenia/schizoaffective, medically ill, and non-ill subjects.

To characterize predictors of impairment in research decision-making capacity, we undertook a direct comparison of schizophrenia/schizoaffective (n=52), medically ill (diabetic; n=51), and non-ill (n=57) subjects. Scores on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) were correlated with demographic variables and scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Short-Form-36 (SF-36). Across diagnoses, cognitive capacity, physical functioning, and a diagnosis of mental illness had the greatest impact on decision-making capacity, with level of education also having an impact. 69-89% of schizophrenia/schizoaffective subjects attained MacCAT-CR subscale scores achieved by almost all comparison (98-100%) and medically ill (94-100%) subjects. Positive, negative, and general psychotic symptoms correlated with poorer scores. Prior research experience, number of queries used during interview, and emotional functioning also predicted MacCAT-CR scores. These data suggest that investigators and IRBs should consider a number of variables, many of which reach across diagnoses, as they decide which populations and individual subjects may require more intensive screening for decisional impairment or educational interventions to improve their abilities to make capable decisions about research participation.

The meaning of work for young adults diagnosed with serious mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increased recognition of the importance of work for social and psychological well-being, the meaning of work for young adults with serious mental health conditions is understudied. This study uses a participatory action research approach to explore the economic, social and psychological significance of work for young adults diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities. METHOD: We conducted 57 one-hour semistructured interviews with young adults between the ages of 18 to 30 enrolled in 3 well established vocational support programs. NVivo 8 software was used to sort and systematically organize the interview data. RESULTS: Young adults with psychiatric disabilities work in part for financial independence from their family but also for additional reasons. Work provides the opportunity for social engagement and feelings of contributing to society as a whole. For some young adults, work provides the opportunity to enhance their self-esteem, self-confidence, and a positive self-image. For Latino young adults, work provides a way to cope with their mental illness. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings provide pertinent information for vocational rehabilitation services, recovery programs, and even parents on the importance of connecting young adults to jobs that enhance self-esteem and self-efficacy and are in line with their personal interests. Future research is needed to understand potential cultural and age differences in the meaning of work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.

The new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for Multi-Site Research was adopted primarily to simplify and speed the review of complex multisite clinical trials. However, speeding review requires overcoming a number of obstacles. Perhaps the most substantial obstacle is the time and effort needed to develop reliance agreements among the participating sites. We conducted 102 semistructured interviews with sIRB personnel, including directors, chairs, reviewers, and staff, from 20 IRBs that acted as sIRBs for multisite research, including 6 commercial/independent sIRBs, and 10 university-based academic and 4 federal sIRBs. Almost without exception, the interviewees agreed that reliance agreements were complex, difficult to develop, and time-consuming. A major problem for relying sites was that different agreements specified different responsibilities for the relying sites. Attitudes differed about whether these problems will be resolved as IRB staff and managers become more experienced with sIRBs. However it is clear that the process of developing reliance agreements must be simplified. Federal assistance in standardizing at least some sections of reliance agreements might reduce the difficulties involved.

Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.

Willingness of subjects with thought disorder to participate in research.

Greater attention is being focused on the willingness and motivations of potential subjects who are recruited for research protocols. Given the importance of subjects' abilities to choose freely and reason through their decisions about entering psychiatric research, empirical researchers have been developing assessment and education tools that address the potential vulnerabilities of research subjects. In this study subjects' responses and reasons for or against participation were elicited as part of an assessment of their research decision making. Fifty-two persons diagnosed with a thought disorder were asked to consider a hypothetical research study using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR). Their responses were documented, coded for content, and correlated with demographic characteristics and scores on scales rating psychosis, cognition, and health-related quality of life. Subjects expressed common considerations that have been identified by other psychiatric investigators, as well as by those studying nonpsychiatric protocols. In general, reasons were both appropriate to the study being considered and appropriately linked to common considerations that flowed logically from the study. However, elements of the therapeutic misconception were evident as well. Willingness to participate was correlated with higher MacCAT-CR scores on certain scales, better education, and lower levels of psychosis and cognitive impairment. These findings highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the decision making of research subjects with thought disorder. Research protections and assessments may consequently be appropriately targeted to specific vulnerabilities. Because of differences in severity of illness, cognition, and reasoning among subjects who decline to participate in research, greater attention to this population appears warranted.

Re-evaluating the therapeutic misconception: response to Miller and Joffe.

Responding to the paper by Miller and Joffe, we review the development of the concept of therapeutic misconception (TM). Our concerns about TM's impact on informed consent do not derive from the belief that research subjects have poorer outcomes than persons receiving ordinary clinical care. Rather, we believe that subjects with TM cannot give an adequate informed consent to research participation, which harms their dignitary interests and their abilities to make meaningful decisions. Ironically, Miller and Joffe's approach ends up largely embracing the very position that they inaccurately attribute to us: the belief that, with some exceptions, it is only the prospect of poorer outcomes that should motivate efforts to dispel TM. In the absence of empirical studies on the steps required to dispel TM and the impact of such procedures on subject recruitment, it is premature to surrender to the belief that TM must be widely tolerated in clinical research.

An exploratory study of therapeutic misconception among incarcerated clinical trial participants.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception, the misunderstanding of differences between research and clinical care, is widely prevalent among non-incarcerated trial participants. Yet little attention has been paid to its presence among individuals who participate in research while incarcerated. METHODS: This study examined the extent to which seventy-two incarcerated individuals may experience therapeutic misconception about their participation in one of six clinical trials, and its correlation with participant characteristics and potential influences on research participation. RESULTS: On average, participants endorsed 70% of items suggestive of therapeutic misconception. The tendency toward therapeutic misconception was significantly higher among: African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites; older and less educated participants; enrollment in a substance abuse-related trial; and correlated with a belief that the trial was the only way to obtain needed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic misconception may be particularly high among select incarcerated individuals and is associated with a perceived lack of treatment options. Further examination of therapeutic misconception among incarcerated research participants is needed.

Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is little information about the prevalence of research integrity problems in the scientific literature. We sought to determine how frequently authors of published pharmaceutical clinical trials reported fabrication of data or misrepresentation of research. METHODS: We conducted a mail survey of 549 authors who had published reports of pharmaceutical clinical trials from 1998 to 2001 that appeared in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We asked authors about fabricated data or misrepresentations of research in three contexts: the target study (the report from which their name was obtained), another study they had participated in, or a study that they personally knew about. RESULTS: We received replies from 64% of authors with valid addresses. Two authors (1%) reported that the target article misrepresented the research. Almost 5% reported fabrication or misrepresentation in a study they had participated in the last 10 years, and 17% of authors personally know about a case of fabrication or misrepresentation in the last 10 years from a source other than published accounts of research misconduct. CONCLUSIONS: Fraud and misrepresentation in clinical trials appear to be rare on a per-published report basis. However, they occur sufficiently frequently that scientists have a significant chance of participating in a project affected by fraud or misrepresentation during their research careers. These rates of exposure justify vigorous efforts to prevent research misconduct.