The Effect of Intensive Implementation Support on Fidelity for Four Evidence-Based Psychosis Treatments: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Service providers need effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) with high fidelity. This study aimed to evaluate an intensive implementation support strategy to increase fidelity to EBP standards in treatment of patients with psychosis. METHODS: The study used a cluster randomized design with pairwise assignment of practices within each of 39 Norwegian mental health clinics. Each site chose two of four practices for implementation: physical health care, antipsychotic medication management, family psychoeducation, illness management and recovery. One practice was assigned to the experimental condition (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) and the other to the control condition (manual only). The outcome measure was fidelity to the EBP, measured at baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months, analyzed using linear mixed models and effect sizes. RESULTS: The increase in fidelity scores (within a range 1-5) from baseline to 18 months was significantly greater for experimental sites than for control sites for the combined four practices, with mean difference in change of 0.86 with 95% CI (0.21; 1.50), p = 0.009). Effect sizes for increase in group difference of mean fidelity scores were 2.24 for illness management and recovery, 0.68 for physical health care, 0.71 for antipsychotic medication management, and 0.27 for family psychoeducation. Most improvements occurred during the first 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive implementation strategies (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) over 12 months can facilitate the implementation of EBPs for psychosis treatment. The approach may be more effective for some practices than for others.

Effects of Attentional Bias Modification on residual symptoms in depression: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Following treatment, many depressed patients have significant residual symptoms. However, large randomised controlled trials (RCT) in this population are lacking. When Attention bias modification training (ABM) leads to more positive emotional biases, associated changes in clinical symptoms have been reported. A broader and more transparent picture of the true advantage of ABM based on larger and more stringent clinical trials have been requested. The current study evaluates the early effect of two weeks ABM training on blinded clinician-rated and self-reported residual symptoms, and whether changes towards more positive attentional biases (AB) would be associated with symptom reduction. METHOD: A total of 321 patients with a history of depression were included in a preregistered randomized controlled double-blinded trial. Patients were randomised to an emotional ABM paradigm over fourteen days or a closely matched control condition. Symptoms based on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) were obtained at baseline and after ABM training. RESULTS: ABM training led to significantly greater decrease in clinician-rated symptoms of depression as compared to the control condition. No differences between ABM and placebo were found for self-reported symptoms. ABM induced a change of AB towards relatively more positive stimuli for participants that also showed greater symptom reduction. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that ABM produces early changes in blinded clinician-rated depressive symptoms and that changes in AB is linked to changes in symptoms. ABM may have practical potential in the treatment of residual depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02658682 (retrospectively registered in January 2016).

Symptom severity moderates the outcome of attention bias modification for depression: An exploratory study.

A recent meta-analysis has questioned the relevance of attention bias modification (ABM) for depression outcomes. However, there might be patient characteristics not yet accounted for, that are relevant to the outcome. In the context of personalized treatment, the lack of moderator studies have limited the potential for matching ABM-treatment to individual patient characteristics. Subjects (N = 301) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either active or placebo Attention Bias Modification (ABM) twice daily for 14 days in a double-blind design (placebo n = 148; ABM n = 153). The outcome was change in symptoms based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Moderator variables were self-reported depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II; BDI-II), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory; BAI) and attentional bias (AB) assessed at baseline. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02658682. Only BAI (p for interaction = .01, Bootstrap 95% CI [0.046, 0.337]) moderated the effects of ABM on change in clinician rated depressive symptoms. Interactions were significant for BAI scores ≥8. The relative effect of the intervention increased with the highest symptom load. ABM was not effective in patients with the lowest symptom load. Future research should validate this finding and continue investigating moderators of the ABM-intervention to further enhance personalization of treatment to individual symptom characteristics.

Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care.

BACKGROUND: A defined goal in mental health care is to increase the opportunities for patients to more actively participate in their treatment. This goal includes integrating aspects of user empowerment and shared decision-making (SDM) into treatment courses. To achieve this goal, more knowledge is needed about how patients and therapists perceive this integration. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experiences of SDM, to describe differences between patient and therapist experiences, and to identify patient factors that might reduce SDM experiences for patients compared to the experiences of their therapists. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 992 patients that had appointments with 267 therapists at Sørlandet Hospital, Division of Mental Health during a 1-week period. Both patients and therapists completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire, which was used to rate SDM experiences. Patients reported demographic and treatment-related information. Therapists provided clinical information. RESULTS: The analysis included 953 patient-therapist responder pairs that completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire. The mean SDM score was 80.7 (SD 20.8) among patients, and 86.6 (SD 12.1) among therapists. Females and patients that did not use medication for mental health disorders reported higher SDM scores than males and patients that used psychiatric medications (83.3 vs. 77.7; p < 0.001 and 82.6 vs. 79.8; p = 0.03, respectively). Patients with diagnoses involving psychotic symptoms reported lower SDM scores than all the other patients (66.8 vs. 82.3; p < 0.001). The probability that a patient would report lower SDM scores than their therapist was highest among patients that received involuntary treatment (OR 3.2, p = 0.02), patients with treatment durations longer than 2.2 years (OR 1.9, p = 0.001), and patients that required day care or in-patient care (OR 3.2, p = 0.01 and OR 3.2, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: We showed that both therapists and patients reported good SDM experiences in decisional situations, which indicated that SDM was implemented well. However, the SDM scores reported by in-patients and patients with prolonged or involuntary treatments were significantly lower than scores reported by their therapists. Our findings suggested that it remains a struggle in mental health care to establish a common understanding between patients and therapists in decisional processes regarding treatments for some patient groups.

Thought Field Therapy Compared to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Wait-List for Agoraphobia: A Randomized, Controlled Study with a 12-Month Follow-up.

Background: Thought field therapy (TFT) is used for many psychiatric conditions, but its efficacy has not been sufficiently documented. Hence, there is a need for studies comparing TFT to well-established treatments. This study compares the efficacy of TFT and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients with agoraphobia. Methods: Seventy-two patients were randomized to CBT (N = 24), TFT (N = 24) or a wait-list condition (WLC) (N = 24) after a diagnostic procedure including the MINI PLUS that was performed before treatment or WLC. Following a 3 months waiting period, the WL patients were randomized to CBT (n = 12) or TFT (n = 12), and all patients were reassessed after treatment or waiting period and at 12 months follow-up. At first we compared the three groups CBT, TFT, and WL. After the post WL randomization, we compared CBT (N = 12 + 24 = 36) to TFT (N = 12 + 24 = 36), applying the pre-treatment scores as baseline for all patients. The primary outcome measure was a symptom score from the Anxiety Disorders Interview Scale that was performed by an interviewer blinded to the treatment condition. For statistical comparisons, we used the independent sample's t-test, the Fisher's exact test and the ANOVA and ANCOVA tests. Results: Both CBT and TFT showed better results than the WLC (p < 0.001) at post-treatment. Post-treatment and at the 12-month follow-up, there were not significant differences between CBT and TFT (p = 0.33 and p = 0.90, respectively). Conclusion: This paper reports the first study comparing TFT to CBT for any disorder. The study indicated that TFT may be an efficient treatment for patients with agoraphobia. Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT00932919.