Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

OBJECTIVES: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry-based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. METHODS: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi-randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short- and long-term trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

How can we best help this patient? Exploring mental health therapists' reflections on medication-free care for patients with psychosis in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, Norwegian Regional Health Authorities have followed new government policy and gradually implemented medication-free services for patients with psychosis. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the tension between policy and practice, and how health care workers in Bergen reflect on their role in implementing medication-free treatment. METHODS: We performed three focus group discussions including 17 therapists working within medication free services, asking about their experiences with this new treatment program. We used Systematic Text Condensation for data analysis. The findings were discussed using Michael Lipsky's theoretical framework on the role public health workers play in policy implementation. FINDINGS: Following Norway's new policy was challenging for the therapists in our study, particularly balancing a patient's needs with treatment guidelines, the legal framework and available resources. Therapists had an overarching wish to help patients through cooperation and therapeutic alliance, but their alliance was sometimes fragile, and the therapists worried about patients' conditions worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Democratization of treatment choices, with the aim of empowering patients in mental health care, challenges the level of professional discretion given that patients and therapists might have conflicting goals. Balancing the desire to help, professional responsibility, the perceived lack of resources, and certain patient choices created conditions that can leave therapists feeling disempowered in and alienated from their work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

"It means so much for me to have a choice": a qualitative study providing first-person perspectives on medication-free treatment in mental health care.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Western Norway Regional Health Authority started to integrate more evidence-based psychosocial interventions into the existing mental health care, emphasizing the right for persons with psychosis to choose medication-free treatment. This change emerged from the debate on the effectiveness and adverse effects of the use of antipsychotic medication. Aspects beyond symptom reduction, such as interpersonal relationships, increased understanding of one's own pattern of suffering, hope and motivation, are all considered important for the personal recovery process. METHODS: This study explores whether these aspects were present in users' descriptions of their recovery processes within the medication-free treatment programme in Bergen, Western Norway. We interviewed ten patients diagnosed with psychosis who were eligible for medication-free services about their treatment experiences. Data were analysed using Attride-Stirling's thematic network approach. RESULTS: The findings show a global theme relating to personal recovery processes facilitated by the provision of more psychosocial treatment options, with three organizing subthemes: interpersonal relationships between patients and therapists, the patient's understanding of personal patterns of suffering, and personal motivation for self-agency in the recovery process. Participants described an improved relationship with therapists compared to previous experiences. Integrating more evidence-based psychosocial interventions into existing mental health services facilitated learning experiences regarding the choice of treatment, particularly the discontinuation of medication, and appeared to support participants' increased self-agency and motivation in their personal recovery processes. CONCLUSION: Health care in Norway is perhaps one step closer to optimizing care for people with psychosis, allowing for more patient choice and improving the dialogue and hence the interpersonal relationship between the patient and the therapist. Personal patterns of suffering can be explored within a system aiming to support and have a higher level of acceptance for the discontinuation of medication. Such a system requires personal agency in the treatment regimen, with more focus on personal coping strategies and more personal responsibility for the recovery process.