Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of selegiline augmentation of antipsychotic medication to treat negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to test the efficacy of selegiline augmentation of antipsychotic medication in outpatients with schizophrenia who had negative symptoms of moderate or greater severity. METHOD: A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of oral selegiline augmentation of antipsychotic medication was carried out. Outpatients were chosen who did not manifest severe positive symptoms at baseline, who did not meet criteria for coexisting major depression, and who had been maintained on a stable regimen of antipsychotic medication. RESULTS: Negative symptoms were found to be significantly more improved in the patients who received selegiline, and global improvement scores reinforced the impression that selegiline augmentation was beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support further investigation of low-dose selegiline augmentation of antipsychotic medication in outpatients with schizophrenia who have at least a moderate burden of negative symptoms.

Two models of psychiatric rehabilitation: a need for clarity and integration.

Two distinct models are identifiable in the processes of psychiatric rehabilitation: treatment and training. The treatment model, which also can be presented as the "medical model," approaches the issues on the basis of defect which needs to be diagnosed and rectified. On the other hand, the training model, which can also be referred to as the "educational model," approaches the situation from the perspective of recognizing what strengths or abilities the individual may have which can be brought to bear constructively, and how to orchestrate that process. These two models involve different perspectives and different processes, and the model which is chosen affects the relationship of the clinician to the consumer. In the practical clinical situation, a thoughtful amalgam of these two orientations is called for in order best to serve the recipient. But clinicians nevertheless benefit from remaining aware of the two models involved and their attendant assumptions and modes of action, so that inconsistencies are minimized while the most effective and integrated services are provided. Administrators, payers, and researchers will similarly benefit from an understanding of the potential benefits of each of these two approaches to intervention.