Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Structured Psychological Support for people with probable personality disorder in mental health services in England: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based psychological treatments for people with personality disorder usually involve attending group-based sessions over many months. Low-intensity psychological interventions of less than 6 months duration have been developed, but their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, researcher-masked, superiority trial. Study participants will be aged 18 and over, have probable personality disorder and be treated by mental health staff in seven centres in England. We will exclude people who are: unwilling or unable to provide written informed consent, have a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder, or are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder or on a waiting list for such treatment. In the intervention group, participants will be offered up to 10 individual sessions of Structured Psychological Support. In the control group, participants will be offered treatment as usual plus a single session of personalised crisis planning. The primary outcome is social functioning measured over 12 months using total score on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Secondary outcomes include mental health, suicidal behaviour, health-related quality of life, patient-rated global improvement and satisfaction, and resource use and costs. The primary analysis will compare WSAS scores across the 12-month period using a general linear mixed model adjusting for baseline scores, allocation group and study centre on an intention-to-treat basis. In a parallel process evaluation, we will analyse qualitative data from interviews with study participants, clinical staff and researchers to examine mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the Helsinki Declaration II and is approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID 315951). Study findings will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal; and disseminated at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13918289.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration: ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

Service user perspectives of community mental health services for people with complex emotional needs: a co-produced qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: There is consensus that services supporting people with complex emotional needs are part of a mental health care system in which change is needed. To date, service users' views and co-production initiatives have had little impact on the development of interventions and care. This needs to change, and our paper evidences the experiences and perspectives of a diverse range of people on how community services can best address the needs of people with complex emotional needs. METHODS: A co-produced qualitative research study. Lived experience researchers led data collection and analysis. Individual interviews were conducted with 30 people across England who had a diverse range of experiences and perspectives of using community services for complex emotional needs. Participants were asked about their experiences of using community services for their mental health, and views on how community services can best address their needs. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported some experiences of good practice but also of experiences of severely stigmatising interventions, a lack of effective support and service fragmentation. Relational Practice was identified as the central overarching theme and describes how community services can best support people with complex emotional needs. This approach involves care delivered in a non-stigmatising, individualised and compassionate way and care that is trauma-informed. It involves care that is planned collaboratively with service users to ensure their multiple needs are addressed in a flexible, holistic and consistent way which accounts for the long-term and fluctuating nature of their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Relational practice approaches have potential to facilitate better community care for people with complex emotional needs. Research and service development are needed to examine how best to implement such approaches across the mental health service system. This work must be co-produced with people with relevant lived experience, their carers and the professionals who support them.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'strengthening families, strengthening communities' group-based parenting programme: study protocol and initial insights.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children's well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0-10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far. METHODS/DESIGN: The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3-18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 .

A psychometric evaluation of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) in nonclinical and clinical German samples.

The Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) is a 9-item self-report screening instrument and was developed to assess personality disorder (PD) severity according to the initial proposal of ICD-11. Our aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the German version of the SASPD in nonclinical and clinical samples. A total of 1,991 participants (N = 888 from nonclinical and N = 1,103 from clinical samples) provided ratings on the SASPD as well as other measures of psychopathology and personality. We examined the SASPD regarding its factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity. A unidimensional structure of the SASPD provided inadequate model fit, whereas a 3-factor solution provided good fit in both the nonclinical and clinical samples. Internal consistency of the SASPD total score was acceptable in the clinical and nonclinical samples based on this multifactorial model. In terms of convergent validity, SASPD scores correlated fairly with other measures of PD severity across samples. Discriminant validity with measures of general symptom distress and measures of (normal) personality traits was mixed. In addition, the SASPD scores predicted levels of PD severity above and beyond a measure of symptom distress. The SASPD captures some theoretically expected features of PD severity. However, the multidimensional structure and limited convergent and discriminant validity may hamper future usage of the SASPD as a short screening tool of PD severity according to ICD-11. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Older adult experience of care and staffing on hospital and community wards: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Recent major concerns about the quality of healthcare delivered to older adults have been linked to inadequate staffing and a lack of patient-centred care. Patient experience is a key component of quality care - yet there has been little research on whether and how staffing levels and staffing types affect satisfaction amongst older adult hospital inpatients. This study aimed to evaluate the association between registered nurse and healthcare assistant staffing levels and satisfaction with care amongst older adult hospital inpatients, and to test whether any positive effect of higher staffing levels is mediated by staff feeling they have more time to care for patients. METHODS: Survey data from 4928 inpatients aged 65 years and older and 2237 medical and nursing staff from 123 acute and community medical wards in England, United Kingdom (UK) was collected through the Royal College of Psychiatrist's Elder Care Quality Mark. The cross-sectional association between staffing ratios and older adult patient satisfaction, and mediation by staff perceived time to care, was evaluated using multi-level modelling, adjusted for ward type and with a random effect for ward identity. RESULTS: Higher numbers of patients per healthcare assistant were associated with poorer patient satisfaction (adjusted ß = - 0.32, 95% CI - 0.55 to 0.10, p < 0.01), and this was found to be partially mediated by all ward staff reporting less time to care for patients (adjusted ß = - 0.10, bias-corrected 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.02). By contrast, in both unadjusted and adjusted models, the number of patients per registered nurse was not associated with patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Older adult hospital patients may particularly value the type of care provided by healthcare assistants, such as basic personal care and supportive communication. Additionally, higher availability of healthcare assistants may contribute to all ward staff feeling more able to spend time with patients. However, high availability of registered nurses has been shown in other research to be vital for ensuring quality and safety of patient care. Future research should seek to identify the ideal balance of registered nurses and healthcare assistants for optimising a range of outcomes amongst older adult patients.

An intervention for parents with severe personality difficulties whose children have mental health problems: a feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: The children of parents with severe personality difficulties have greater risk of significant mental health problems. Existing care is poorly co-ordinated, with limited effectiveness. A specialised parenting intervention may improve child and parenting outcomes, reduce family morbidity and lower the service costs. OBJECTIVES: To develop a specialised parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems and to conduct a feasibility trial. DESIGN: A pragmatic, mixed-methods design to develop and pilot a specialised parenting intervention, Helping Families Programme-Modified, and to conduct a randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation. Initial cost-effectiveness was assessed using UK NHS/Personal Social Services and societal perspectives, generating quality-adjusted life-years. Researchers collecting quantitative data were masked to participant allocation. SETTING: Two NHS mental health trusts and concomitant children's social care services. PARTICIPANTS: Parents who met the following criteria: (1) the primary caregiver of the index child, (2) aged 18-65 years, (3) have severe personality difficulties, (4) proficient in English and (5) capable of providing informed consent. Index children who met the following criteria: (1) aged 3-11 years, (2) living with index parent and (3) have significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. Exclusion criteria were (1) having coexisting psychosis, (2) participating in another parenting intervention, (3) receiving inpatient care, (4) having insufficient language/cognitive abilities, (5) having child developmental disorder, (6) care proceedings and (7) index child not residing with index parent. INTERVENTION: The Helping Families Programme-Modified - a 16-session intervention using structured, goal-orientated strategies and collaborative therapeutic methods to improve parenting, and child and parent functioning. Usual care - standard care augmented by a single psychoeducational session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trial feasibility - rates of recruitment, eligibility, allocation, retention, data completion and experience. Intervention acceptability - rates of acceptance, completion, alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) and experience. Outcomes - child (assessed via Concerns About My Child, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (assessed via the Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale), parent (assessed via the Symptom Checklist-27), and health economics (assessed via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, EuroQol-5 Dimensions). RESULTS: The findings broadly supported trial feasibility using non-diagnostic screening criteria. Parents were mainly referred from one site (75.0%). Site and participant factors delayed recruitment. An estimate of eligible parents was not obtained. Of the 86 parents referred, 60 (69.7%) completed screening and 48 of these (80.0%) were recruited. Participants experienced significant disadvantage and multiple morbidity. The Helping Families Programme-Modified uptake (87.5%) was higher than usual-care uptake (62.5%). Trial retention (66.7%, 95% confidence interval 51.6% to 79.6%) exceeded the a priori rate. Process findings highlighted the impact of random allocation and the negative effects on retention. The Helping Families Programme-Modified was acceptable, with duration of delivery longer than planned, whereas the usual-care condition was less acceptable. At initial follow-up, effects on child and parenting outcomes were detected across both arms, with a potential outcome advantage for the Helping Families Programme-Modified (effect size range 0.0-1.3). For parental quality-adjusted life-years, the Helping Families Programme-Modified dominated usual care, and child quality-adjusted life-years resulted in higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years. At second follow-up, the Helping Families Programme-Modified was associated with higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For child quality-adjusted life-years, when controlled for baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, usual care dominated the Helping Families Programme-Modified. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The Helping Families Programme-Modified is an acceptable specialised parenting intervention. Trial methods using non-diagnostic criteria were largely supported. For future work, a definitive efficacy trial should consider site selection, recruitment methods, intervention efficiency and revised comparator condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14573230. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Parents affected by personality difficulties experience strong, overwhelming emotions and struggle in their personal and social relationships. These difficulties can interfere with their ability to provide stable, safe and warm parenting, which increases the risk of their children developing mental health problems. This research developed the Helping Families Programme-Modified, a new parenting intervention designed to help parents with severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems. Parents received 16 home-based appointments to learn new parenting skills and improve their children's difficulties. The research assessed how the Helping Families Programme-Modified worked in practice and the viability of evaluation methods. A short questionnaire assessing personality difficulties, rather than a lengthy diagnostic interview, was more effective and acceptable for identifying parents who may benefit from the Helping Families Programme-Modified. Parents taking part had high levels of personal, family and social problems. This slowed the rate at which parents agreed to take part in the evaluation and lengthened the intervention period. The research tested parent agreement to being randomly allocated to receive either the Helping Families Programme-Modified or usual care plus a specially designed parenting appointment. Although this random allocation was feasible, parents were disappointed when they did not receive the Helping Families Programme-Modified. They often felt overwhelmed by family difficulties and lacked other suitable services. These parents were less likely to take up the additional parenting appointment available or to provide subsequent research information, which affected the certainty of the research findings. Parents receiving the Helping Families Programme-Modified or usual care reported improvements, with a potentially greater impact on parents and children, and better acceptability, for the new intervention. Parents generally supported the tailored, home-based approach of the Helping Families Programme-Modified, and they valued its content, therapist skills and persistence. It was uncertain whether the new intervention increased or reduced service costs. These results will be used to plan the most suitable methods for a large-scale evaluation of the Helping Families Programme-Modified.

Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes (LP-MAESTRO): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: We describe the protocol for a project that will use linkage of routinely collected NHS data to answer a question about the nature and effectiveness of liaison psychiatry services in acute hospitals in England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The project will use three data sources: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a database controlled by NHS Digital that contains patient data relating to emergency department (ED), inpatient and outpatient episodes at hospitals in England; (2) ResearchOne, a research database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) that contains patient data relating to primary care provided by organisations using the SystmOne clinical information system and (3) clinical databases controlled by mental health trusts that contain patient data relating to care provided by liaison psychiatry services. We will link patient data from these sources to construct care pathways for patients who have been admitted to a particular hospital and determine those patients who have been seen by a liaison psychiatry service during their admission.Patient care pathways will form the basis of a matched cohort design to test the effectiveness of liaison intervention. We will combine healthcare utilisation within care pathways using cost figures from national databases. We will compare the cost of each care pathway and the impact of a broad set of health-related outcomes to obtain preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness for liaison psychiatry services. We will carry out an exploratory incremental cost-effectiveness analysis from a whole system perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Individual patient consent will not be feasible for this study. Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (North of Scotland) (REF: 16/NS/0025) for Work Stream 2 (phase 1) of the Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes study. The Confidentiality Advisory Group at the Health Research Authority determined that Section 251 approval under Regulation 5 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 was not required for the study 'on the basis that there is no disclosure of patient identifiable data without consent' (REF: 16/CAG/0037).Results of the study will be published in academic journals in health services research and mental health. Details of the study methodology will also be published in an academic journal. Discussion papers will be authored for health service commissioners.

Impact of secondary care financial incentives on the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis: a longitudinal controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have repeatedly been expressed about the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis receive. AIMS: To examine whether the introduction of a financial incentive for secondary care services led to improvements in the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis. METHOD: Longitudinal data were collected over an 8-year period on the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis received from 56 trusts in England before and after the introduction of the financial incentive. Control data were also collected from six health boards in Wales where a financial incentive was not introduced. We calculated the proportion of patients whose clinical records indicated that they had been screened for seven key aspects of physical health and whether they were offered interventions for problems identified during screening. RESULTS: Data from 17 947 people collected prior to (2011 and 2013) and following (2017) the introduction of the financial incentive in 2014 showed that the proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in England rose from 12.85% to 31.65% (difference 18.80, 95% CI 17.37-20.21). The proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in Wales during this period rose from 8.40% to 13.96% (difference 5.56, 95% CI 1.33-10.10). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that financial incentives for secondary care mental health services are associated with marked improvements in the quality of care that patients receive. Further research is needed to examine their impact on aspects of care that are not incentivised.

A programme theory for liaison mental health services in England.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms by which liaison mental health services (LMHS) may bring about improved patient and organisational outcomes are poorly understood. A small number of logic models have been developed, but they fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice. METHOD: We synthesised data from a variety of sources including a large national survey, 73 in-depth interviews with acute and liaison staff working in hospitals with different types of liaison mental health services, and relevant local, national and international literature. We generated logic models for two common performance indicators used to assess organisational outcomes for LMHS: response times in the emergency department and hospital length of stay for people with mental health problems. RESULTS: We identified 8 areas of complexity that influence performance, and 6 trade-offs which drove the models in different directions depending upon the balance of the trade-off. The logic models we developed could only be captured by consideration of more than one pass through the system, the complexity in which they operated, and the trade-offs that occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are important for commissioners of liaison services. Reliance on simple target setting may result in services that are unbalanced and not patient-centred. Targets need to be reviewed on a regular basis, together with other data that reflect the wider impact of the service, and any external changes in the system that affect the performance of LMHS, which are beyond their control.

Lamotrigine for people with borderline personality disorder: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: No drug treatments are currently licensed for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite this, people with this condition are frequently prescribed psychotropic medications and often with considerable polypharmacy. Preliminary studies have indicated that mood stabilisers may be of benefit to people with BPD. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine for people with BPD. DESIGN: A two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled individually randomised trial of lamotrigine versus placebo. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote web-based service using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre, the severity of personality disorder and the extent of hypomanic symptoms. SETTING: Secondary care NHS mental health services in six centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, meet diagnostic criteria for BPD and provide written informed consent. We excluded people with coexisting psychosis or bipolar affective disorder, those already taking a mood stabiliser, those who spoke insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who were pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 200 mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were prescribed up to 400 mg of trial medication per day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 12, 24 and 52 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was the total score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment and adverse events. Higher scores on all measures indicate poorer outcomes. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and October 2015 we randomised 276 participants, of whom 195 (70.6%) were followed up 52 weeks later. At 52 weeks, 49 (36%) of those participants prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. At 52 weeks, the mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 [standard deviation (SD) 6.6] among those participants randomised to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD 7.7) among those participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.0; p = 0.91). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at any time. Adjusted costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. LIMITATIONS: Levels of adherence in this pragmatic trial were low, but greater adherence was not associated with better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lamotrigine to the usual care of people with BPD was not found to be clinically effective or provide a cost-effective use of resources. FUTURE WORK: Future research into the treatment of BPD should focus on improving the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments to help policy-makers make better decisions about investing in specialist treatment services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365. FUNDING: Funding for this trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Facility, which is funded by NIHR, also provided support that has contributed to the research results reported within this paper. Part of Richard Morriss' salary during the project was paid by NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands.

Ethnic minority inequalities in access to treatments for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders: findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minority service users with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders may experience inequalities in care. There have been no recent studies assessing access to evidence-based treatments for psychosis amongst the main ethnic minority groups in the UK. METHODS: Data from nationally representative surveys from England and Wales, for 10,512 people with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders, were used for analyses. Multi-level multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess ethnic minority inequalities in access to pharmacological treatments, psychological interventions, shared decision making and care planning, taking into account a range of potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared with white service users, black service users were more likely prescribed depot/injectable antipsychotics (odds ratio 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.33-1.84)). Black service users with treatment resistance were less likely to be prescribed clozapine (odds ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.79)). All ethnic minority service users, except those of mixed ethnicity, were less likely to be offered cognitive behavioural therapy, compared to white service users. Black service users were less likely to have been offered family therapy, and Asian service users were less likely to have received copies of care plans (odds ratio 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.33-0.76)), compared to white service users. There were no clinician-reported differences in shared decision making across each of the ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSION: Relative to white service users, ethnic minority service users with psychosis were generally less likely to be offered a range of evidence-based treatments for psychosis, which included pharmacological and psychological interventions as well as involvement in care planning.

The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Positive behaviour support training for staff for treating challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities: a cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies have indicated that training staff in Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) may help to reduce challenging behaviour among people with intellectual disability (ID). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether or not such training is clinically effective in reducing challenging behaviour in routine care. The study also included longer-term follow-up (approximately 36 months). DESIGN: A multicentre, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-cluster randomised controlled trial. The unit of randomisation was the community ID service using an independent web-based randomisation system and random permuted blocks on a 1 : 1 allocation stratified by a staff-to-patient ratio for each cluster. SETTING: Community ID services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged > 18 years) across the range of ID with challenging behaviour [≥ 15 Aberrant Behaviour Checklist - Community total score (ABC-CT)]. INTERVENTIONS: Manual-assisted face-to-face PBS training to therapists and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU only in the control arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Carer-reported changes in challenging behaviour as measured by the ABC-CT over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, community participation, family and paid carer burden, family carer psychopathology, costs of care and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Data on main outcome, service use and health-related quality of life were collected for the 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants were recruited from 23 teams, of whom 109 were in the intervention arm (11 teams) and 137 were in the control arm (12 teams). The difference in ABC-CT between the intervention and control arms [mean difference -2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to 4.51; p = 0.528] was not statistically significant. No treatment effects were found for any of the secondary outcomes. The mean cost per participant in the intervention arm was £1201. Over 12 months, there was a difference in QALYs of 0.076 in favour of the intervention (95% CI 0.011 to 0.140 QALYs) and a 60% chance that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU from a health and social care cost perspective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Twenty-nine participants experienced 45 serious adverse events (intervention arm, n = 19; control arm, n = 26). PBS plans were available for 33 participants. An independent assessment of the quality of these plans found that all were less than optimal. Forty-six qualitative interviews were conducted with service users, family carers, paid carers and service managers as part of the process evaluation. Service users reported that they had learned to manage difficult situations and had gained new skills, and carers reported a positive relationship with therapists. At 36 months' follow-up (n = 184), the mean ABC-CT difference between arms was not significant (-3.70, 95% CI -9.25 to 1.85; p = 0.191). The initial cost-effectiveness of the intervention dissipated over time. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were low treatment fidelity and reach of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the main study and the naturalistic follow-up suggest that staff training in PBS as delivered in this study is insufficient to achieve significant clinical gains beyond TAU in community ID services. Although there is an indication that training in PBS is potentially cost-effective, this is not maintained in the longer term. There is increased scope to develop new approaches to challenging behaviour as well as optimising the delivery of PBS in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as NCT01680276. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Development and Psychometric Properties of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD).

Personality disorder (PD) is increasingly categorized according to its severity, but there is no simple way to screen for severity according to ICD-11 criteria. We set out to develop the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). A total of 110 patients completed the SASPD together with a clinical assessment of the severity of personality disorder. We examined the predictive ability of the SASPD using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Two to four weeks later, 43 patients repeated the SASPD to examine reliability. The SASPD had good predictive ability for determining mild (AUC = 0.86) and moderate (AUC = 0.84) PD at cut points of 8 and 10, respectively. Test-retest reliability of the SASPD was high (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93, 95% CI [0.88, 0.96]). The SASPD thus provides a simple, brief, and reliable indicator of the presence of mild or moderate PD according to ICD-11 criteria.

International multicentre randomised controlled trial of improvisational music therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder: TIME-A study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies have indicated that music therapy may benefit children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of improvisational music therapy (IMT) on social affect and responsiveness of children with ASD. DESIGN: International, multicentre, three-arm, single-masked randomised controlled trial, including a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded centre that recruited in London and the east of England. Randomisation was via a remote service using permuted blocks, stratified by study site. SETTING: Schools and private, voluntary and state-funded health-care services. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 4 and 7 years with a confirmed diagnosis of ASD and a parent or guardian who provided written informed consent. We excluded children with serious sensory disorder and those who had received music therapy within the past 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: All parents and children received enhanced standard care (ESC), which involved three 60-minute sessions of advice and support in addition to treatment as usual. In addition, they were randomised to either one (low-frequency) or three (high-frequency) sessions of IMT per week, or to ESC alone, over 5 months in a ratio of 1 : 1 : 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured using the social affect score derived from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) at 5 months: higher scores indicated greater impairment. Secondary outcomes included social affect at 12 months and parent-rated social responsiveness at 5 and 12 months (higher scores indicated greater impairment). RESULTS: A total of 364 participants were randomised between 2011 and 2015. A total of 182 children were allocated to IMT (90 to high-frequency sessions and 92 to low-frequency sessions), and 182 were allocated to ESC alone. A total of 314 (86.3%) of the total sample were followed up at 5 months [165 (90.7%) in the intervention group and 149 (81.9%) in the control group]. Among those randomised to IMT, 171 (94.0%) received it. From baseline to 5 months, mean scores of ADOS social affect decreased from 14.1 to 13.3 in music therapy and from 13.5 to 12.4 in standard care [mean difference: music therapy vs. standard care = 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.81], with no significant difference in improvement. There were also no differences in the parent-rated social responsiveness score, which decreased from 96.0 to 89.2 in the music therapy group and from 96.1 to 93.3 in the standard care group over this period (mean difference: music therapy vs. standard care = -3.32, 95% CI -7.56 to 0.91). There were seven admissions to hospital that were unrelated to the study interventions in the two IMT arms compared with 10 unrelated admissions in the ESC group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding IMT to the treatment received by children with ASD did not improve social affect or parent-assessed social responsiveness. FUTURE WORK: Other methods for delivering music-focused interventions for children with ASD should be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78923965. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manualised intervention to improve social functioning.

BACKGROUND: If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder. DESIGN: Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services. INTERVENTIONS: Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information. RESULTS: There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ -0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64). LIMITATIONS: There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community. FUTURE WORK: We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impact of personality status on the outcomes and cost of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health anxiety.

BACKGROUND: Health anxiety, hypochondriasis and personality disturbance commonly coexist. The impact of personality status was assessed in a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). AIMS: To test the impact of personality status using ICD-11 criteria on the clinical and cost outcomes of treatment with cognitive-behavioural therapy for health anxiety (CBT-HA) and standard care over 2 years. METHOD: Personality dysfunction was assessed at baseline in 444 patients before randomisation and independent assessment of costs and outcomes made on four occasions over 2 years. RESULTS: In total, 381 patients (86%) had some personality dysfunction with 184 (41%) satisfying the ICD criteria for personality disorder. Those with no personality dysfunction showed no treatment differences (P = 0.90) and worse social function with CBT-HA compared with standard care (P<0.03) whereas all other personality groups showed greater improvement with CBT-HA maintained over 2 years (P<0.001). Less benefit was shown in those with more severe personality disorder (P<0.05). Costs were less with CBT-HA except for non-significant greater differences in those with moderate or severe personality disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The results contradict the hypothesis that personality disorder impairs response to CBT in health anxiety in both the short and medium term.

Antidepressant Controlled Trial For Negative Symptoms In Schizophrenia (ACTIONS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms of schizophrenia represent deficiencies in emotional responsiveness, motivation, socialisation, speech and movement. When persistent, they are held to account for much of the poor functional outcomes associated with schizophrenia. There are currently no approved pharmacological treatments. While the available evidence suggests that a combination of antipsychotic and antidepressant medication may be effective in treating negative symptoms, it is too limited to allow any firm conclusions. OBJECTIVE: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of antipsychotic medication with the antidepressant citalopram for the management of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Adult psychiatric services, treating people with schizophrenia. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients or outpatients with schizophrenia, on continuing, stable antipsychotic medication, with persistent negative symptoms at a criterion level of severity. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to treatment with either placebo (one capsule) or 20 mg of citalopram per day for 48 weeks, with the clinical option at 4 weeks to increase the daily dosage to 40 mg of citalopram or two placebo capsules for the remainder of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were quality of life measured at 12 and 48 weeks assessed using the Heinrich's Quality of Life Scale, and negative symptoms at 12 weeks measured on the negative symptom subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: No therapeutic benefit in terms of improvement in quality of life or negative symptoms was detected for citalopram over 12 weeks or at 48 weeks, but secondary analysis suggested modest improvement in the negative symptom domain, avolition/amotivation, at 12 weeks (mean difference -1.3, 95% confidence interval -2.5 to -0.09). There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment arms over 48-week follow-up in either the health economics outcomes or costs, and no differences in the frequency or severity of adverse effects, including corrected QT interval prolongation. LIMITATIONS: The trial under-recruited, partly because cardiac safety concerns about citalopram were raised, with the 62 participants recruited falling well short of the target recruitment of 358. Although this was the largest sample randomised to citalopram in a randomised controlled trial of antidepressant augmentation for negative symptoms of schizophrenia and had the longest follow-up, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. CONCLUSION: Although adjunctive citalopram did not improve negative symptoms overall, there was evidence of some positive effect on avolition/amotivation, recognised as a critical barrier to psychosocial rehabilitation and achieving better social and community functional outcomes. Comprehensive assessment of side-effect burden did not identify any serious safety or tolerability issues. The addition of citalopram as a long-term prescribing strategy for the treatment of negative symptoms may merit further investigation in larger studies. FUTURE WORK: Further studies of the viability of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for negative symptoms in schizophrenia should include appropriate safety monitoring and use rating scales that allow for evaluation of avolition/amotivation as a discrete negative symptom domain. Overcoming the barriers to recruiting an adequate sample size will remain a challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2009-009235-30 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42305247. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.