Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Refining a model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychoses in England: a qualitative formative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Additional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95702682 , 26 October 2017.

An evaluation of the implementation of cascade training for suicide prevention during the 'Choose Life' initiative in Scotland - utilizing Normalization Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: 'Cascade training' or 'train-the-trainers' has been widely utilised in the dissemination of information and expertise in health and social care, but with little examination of the work required for optimal delivery. National suicide prevention strategies commonly include such training initiatives. METHODS: A qualitative study to characterise the work, according to the concepts of Normalization Process Theory, required to disseminate STORM, a model of suicide prevention training across Scotland, and then implement it within organisations. This utilised a cascade style 'train-the trainers' intervention delivered as part of the Choose Life suicide prevention strategy in Scotland during 2008-11. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 19 training facilitators, 30 of their group participants within organisations and 11 local managers within health boards in Scotland. RESULTS: Crucial to the process of a cascade training approach to implementing suicide prevention within an organisation was the multi-layered activity of constructing coherence of the intervention at every level in order to prevent dilution of the training. This necessitated collaborative work within and between groups of actors- managers, facilitators and participants. Where facilitators were effectively engaged in their role, confident in their ability to train, supported by supervision and possessed the leadership skills to engage both with participants and their local context to deliver training, there was evidence of both successful delivery and embedding within the organisation. However, there was little systematic evidence of institutional level appraisal- crucial to truly implementing a novel intervention within the system - despite efforts at local managerial engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Successful cascade or train-the-trainer implementation of an intervention requires extensive collaborative work to take place between and within groups of actors at all levels of an organization from those working at policy level to the 'coalface'. A priori application of Normalization Process Theory, to specify aims and goals for the necessary work to be carried out between different groups of actors, would assist in embedding a novel working practice at all levels. Future national training strategies for suicide prevention should address what is required to establish a flourishing culture of high-quality skills acquisition and development within healthcare organisations.

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (versus usual care) for people with mental-physical multimorbidity: cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care can support the treatment of depression in people with long-term conditions, but long-term benefits and costs are unknown.AimsTo explore the long-term (24-month) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with mental-physical multimorbidity. METHOD: A cluster randomised trial compared collaborative care (integrated physical and mental healthcare) with usual care for depression alongside diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. Depression symptoms were measured by the symptom checklist-depression scale (SCL-D13). The economic evaluation was from the perspective of the English National Health Service. RESULTS: 191 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 196 to usual care. At 24 months, the mean SCL-D13 score was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06) lower in the collaborative care group alongside a gain of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost per QALY gained was £13 069. CONCLUSIONS: In the long term, collaborative care reduces depression and is potentially cost-effective at internationally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.Declaration of interestNone.

Primary care physicians' use of the proposed classification of common mental disorders for ICD-11.

Background: The World Health Organization is revising the classification of common mental disorders in primary care for ICD-11. Major changes from the ICD-10 primary care version have been proposed for: (i) mood and anxiety disorders; and (ii) presentations of multiple somatic symptoms (bodily stress syndrome). This three-part field study explored the implementation of the revised classification by primary care physicians (PCPs) in five countries. Methods: Participating PCPs in Brazil, China, Mexico, Pakistan and Spain were asked to use the revised classification, first in patients that they suspected might be psychologically distressed (Part 1), and second in patients with multiple somatic symptoms causing distress or disability not wholly attributable to a known physical pathology, or with high levels of health anxiety (Part 2). Patients referred to Part 1 or Part 2 underwent a structured diagnostic interview. Part 3 consisted of feedback from PCPs regarding the classification. Results: In Part 1, anxious depression was the most common disorder among referred patients. PCPs assigned the highest severity ratings to anxious depression, and the next highest to current depression; current anxiety was rated as least severe. Considerable overlap was found between bodily stress syndrome (BSS) and health anxiety (HA). The psychiatric interview recorded higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders diagnoses among patients with BSS than did PCPs. PCPs' satisfaction with the revised classification was high. Conclusions: Results generally supported the inclusion of the new categories of anxious depression, BSS and HA for ICD-11 PHC and suggested that PCPs could implement these categories satisfactorily.

Improving access to mental health care in an Orthodox Jewish community: a critical reflection upon the accommodation of otherness.

BACKGROUND: The English National Health Service (NHS) has significantly extended the supply of evidence based psychological interventions in primary care for people experiencing common mental health problems. Yet despite the extra resources, the accessibility of services for 'under-served' ethnic and religious minority groups, is considerably short of the levels of access that may be necessary to offset the health inequalities created by their different exposure to services, resulting in negative health outcomes. This paper offers a critical reflection upon an initiative that sought to improve access to an NHS funded primary care mental health service to one 'under-served' population, an Orthodox Jewish community in the North West of England. METHODS: A combination of qualitative and quantitative data were drawn upon including naturally occurring data, observational notes, e-mail correspondence, routinely collected demographic data and clinical outcomes measures, as well as written feedback and recorded discussions with 12 key informants. RESULTS: Improvements in access to mental health care for some people from the Orthodox Jewish community were achieved through the collaborative efforts of a distributed leadership team. The members of this leadership team were a self-selecting group of stakeholders which had a combination of local knowledge, cultural understanding, power to negotiate on behalf of their respective constituencies and expertise in mental health care. Through a process of dialogic engagement the team was able to work with the community to develop a bespoke service that accommodated its wish to maintain a distinct sense of cultural otherness. CONCLUSIONS: This critical reflection illustrates how dialogic engagement can further the mechanisms of candidacy, concordance and recursivity that are associated with improvements in access to care in under-served sections of the population, whilst simultaneously recognising the limits of constructive dialogue. Dialogue can change the dynamic of community engagement. However, the full alignment of the goals of differing constituencies may not always be possible, due the complex interaction between the multiple positions and understandings of stakeholders that are involved and the need to respect the other'-s' autonomy.

Homicide-suicide and the role of mental disorder: a national consecutive case series.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of robust empirical research examining mental disorder and homicide-suicide. Primary care medical records are seldom used in homicide-suicide research. The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics of offenders and victims; determine the prevalence of mental disorder and contact with mental health services and examine adverse events prior to the offence. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study based on a consecutive case series of offences in England and Wales occurring between 2006 and 2008. 60 homicide-suicides were recorded. Data sources included coroner's records, police files, General Practice (GP) and specialist mental health records, and newspaper articles. RESULTS: The results show that most victims were spouse/partners and/or children. Most perpetrators were male (88 %) and most victims were female (77 %). The incidents were commonly preceded by relationship breakdown and separation. 62 % had mental health problems. A quarter visited a GP for emotional distress within a month of the incident. Few had been in recent contact with mental health services before the incident (12 %). Self-harm (26 %) and domestic violence (39 %) were common. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, GPs cannot be expected to prevent homicide-suicide directly, but they can reduce risk generally, via the treatment of depression and recognising the risks associated with domestic violence.

Evaluating a complex model designed to increase access to high quality primary mental health care for under-served groups: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: Many people with mental distress are disadvantaged because care is not available or does not address their needs. In order to increase access to high quality primary mental health care for under-served groups, we created a model of care with three discrete elements: community engagement, primary care training and tailored wellbeing interventions. We have previously demonstrated the individual impact of each element of the model. Here we assess the effectiveness of the combined model in increasing access to and improving the quality of primary mental health care. We test the assumptions that access to the wellbeing interventions is increased by the presence of community engagement and primary care training; and that quality of primary mental health care is increased by the presence of community engagement and the wellbeing interventions. METHODS: We implemented the model in four under-served localities in North-West England, focusing on older people and minority ethnic populations. Using a quasi-experimental design with no-intervention comparators, we gathered a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative information, including referral and recruitment rates for the wellbeing interventions, and practice referrals to mental health services, was analysed descriptively. Qualitative information derived from interview and focus group responses to topic guides from more than 110 participants. Framework analysis was used to generate findings from the qualitative data. RESULTS: Access to the wellbeing interventions was associated with the presence of the community engagement and the primary care training elements. Referrals to the wellbeing interventions were associated with community engagement, while recruitment was associated with primary care training. Qualitative data suggested that the mechanisms underlying these associations were increased awareness and sense of agency. The quality of primary mental health care was enhanced by information gained from our community mapping activities, and by the offer of access to the wellbeing interventions. There were variable benefits from health practitioner participation in community consultative groups. We also found that participation in the wellbeing interventions led to increased community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: We explored the interactions between elements of a multilevel intervention and identified important associations and underlying mechanisms. Further research is needed to test the generalisability of the model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, reference ISRCTN68572159 . Registered 25 February 2013.

Community Engagement in a complex intervention to improve access to primary mental health care for hard-to-reach groups.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety, many 'harder-to-reach' social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a model for community engagement component of the complex intervention. This paper focuses on the development of relationships between stakeholders, their engagement with the issue of access to mental health and with the programme through the CE model. DESIGN: Our evaluation draws on process data, qualitative interviews and focus groups, brought together through framework analysis to evaluate the issues and challenges encountered. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A case study of the South Asian community project carried out in Longsight in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. KEY FINDINGS: Complex problems require multiple local stakeholders to work in concert. Assets based approaches implicitly make demands on scarce time and resources. Community development approaches have many benefits, but perceptions of open-ended investment are a barrier. The time-limited nature of a CE intervention provides an impetus to 'do it now', allowing stakeholders to negotiate their investment over time and accommodating their wider commitments. Both tangible outcomes and recognition of process benefits were vital in maintaining involvement. CONCLUSIONS: CE interventions can play a key role in improving accessibility and acceptability by engaging patients, the public and practitioners in research and in the local service ecology.

Serious mental illness and the role of primary care.

Policies and guidelines from across the international community are attempting to galvanise action to address the unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates amongst people with a serious mental illness (SMI). Primary care has a pivotal role to play in translating policy into evidence based practice in conjunction with other providers of health care services. This paper explores the current and potential of role of primary care providers in delivering health care to people with SMI. A review of research in the following key areas of primary health care provision is provided: access, screening and preventative care, routine monitoring and follow-up, diagnosis and delivery of treatments in accordance with guidelines and delivery of interventions. There is undoubtedly a need for further research to establish the effectiveness of primary care interventions and the organisation of services. Equally, understanding how primary care services can deliver high quality care and promoting effective working at the interface with other services must be priorities.

Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. METHODS: A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. RESULTS: A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular. CONCLUSIONS: This project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular 'lack of insight', may be more effectively managed.

Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapy is effective for symptoms of mental distress, but many groups with high levels of mental distress face significant barriers in terms of access to care, as current interventions may not be sensitive to their needs or their understanding of mental health. There is a need to develop forms of psychological therapy that are acceptable to these groups, feasible to deliver in routine settings, and clinically and cost effective. METHODS: We developed a culturally sensitive wellbeing intervention with individual, group and sign-posting elements, and tested its feasibility and acceptability for patients from ethnic minorities and older people in an exploratory randomised trial. RESULTS: We recruited 57 patients (57% of our target) from 4 disadvantaged localities in the NW of England. The results of the exploratory trial suggest that the group receiving the wellbeing interventions improved compared to the group receiving usual care. For elders, the largest effects were on CORE-OM and PHQ-9. For ethnic minority patients, the largest effect was on PHQ-9. Qualitative data suggested that patients found the intervention acceptable, both in terms of content and delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory trial provides some evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of a wellbeing intervention for older and ethnic minority groups experiencing anxiety and depression, although challenges in recruitment and engagement remain. Evidence from our exploratory study of wellbeing interventions should inform new substantive trial designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN68572159.

Facilitating professional liaison in collaborative care for depression in UK primary care; a qualitative study utilising normalisation process theory.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting. METHODS: This qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care. RESULTS: Supervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated. CONCLUSION: Primary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs' understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.

Aiming to improve the quality of primary mental health care: developing an intervention for underserved communities.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to improve the quality of primary mental healthcare in underserved communities through involvement with the wider primary care team members and local community agencies. METHODS: We developed training intended for all GP practice staff which included elements of knowledge transfer, systems review and active linking. Seven GP Practices in four localities (North West England, UK) took part in the training. Qualitative evaluation was conducted using thirteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups in six of the participating practices; analysis used principles of Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Staff who had engaged with the training programme reported increased awareness, recognition and respect for the needs of patients from under-served communities. We received reports of changes in style and content of interactions, particularly amongst receptionists, and evidence of system change. In addition, the training program increased awareness of - and encouraged signposting to - community agencies within the practice locality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how engaging with practices and delivering training in a changing health care system might best be attempted. The importance of engaging with community agencies is clear, as is the use of the AMP model as a template for further research.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention, which typically consists of a number of components. The intervention aims to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care for people with SMI who are living in the community. The primary outcome of interest was psychiatric admissions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised register in April 2011. The register is compiled from systematic searches of major databases, handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. We also contacted 51 experts in the field of SMI and collaborative care. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) described as collaborative care by the trialists comparing any form of collaborative care with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI, defined as schizophrenia or other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis (e.g. schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders), bipolar affective disorder or other types of psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors worked independently to extract and quality assess data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT (306 participants; US veterans with bipolar disorder I or II) in this review. We did not find any trials meeting our inclusion criteria that included people with schizophrenia. The trial provided data for one comparison: collaborative care versus standard care. All results are 'low or very low quality evidence'.Data indicated that collaborative care reduced psychiatric admissions at year two in comparison to standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99).The sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of participants psychiatrically hospitalised was lower in the intervention group than the standard care group in year three: 28% compared to 38% (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99).In comparison to the standard care group, collaborative care significantly improved the Mental Health Component (MHC) of quality of life at the three-year follow-up, (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 3.50, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.20). The Physical Health Component (PHC) of the quality of life measure at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.91).Direct intervention (all-treatment) costs of collaborative care at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly from standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD -$2981.00, 95% CI $16934.93 to $10972.93). The proportion of participants leaving the study early did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.79). There is no trial-based information regarding the effect of collaborative care for people with schizophrenia.No statistically significant differences were found between groups for number of deaths by suicide at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), or the number of participants that died from all other causes at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.66). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review did not identify any studies relevant to care of people with schizophrenia and hence there is no evidence available to determine if collaborative care is effective for people suffering from schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorders. There was however one trial at high risk of bias that suggests that collaborative care for US veterans with bipolar disorder may reduce psychiatric admissions at two years and improves quality of life (mental health component) at three years, however, on its own it is not sufficient for us to make any recommendations regarding its effectiveness. More large, well designed, conducted and reported trials are required before any clinical or policy making decisions can be made.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems.

BACKGROUND: Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.

Improving access to psychosocial interventions for common mental health problems in the United Kingdom: narrative review and development of a conceptual model for complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom and worldwide, there is significant policy interest in improving the quality of care for patients with mental health disorders and distress. Improving quality of care means addressing not only the effectiveness of interventions but also the issue of limited access to care. Research to date into improving access to mental health care has not been strongly rooted within a conceptual model, nor has it systematically identified the different elements of the patient journey from identification of illness to receipt of care. This paper set out to review core concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, synthesise these to develop a conceptual model of access, and consider the implications of the model for the development and evaluation of interventions for groups with poor access to mental health care such as older people and ethnic minorities. METHODS: Narrative review of the literature to identify concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, and synthesis into a conceptual model to support the delivery and evaluation of complex interventions to improve access to mental health care. RESULTS: The narrative review adopted a process model of access to care, incorporating interventions at three levels. The levels comprise (a) community engagement (b) addressing the quality of interactions in primary care and (c) the development and delivery of tailored psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The model we propose can form the basis for the development and evaluation of complex interventions in access to mental health care. We highlight the key methodological challenges in evaluating the overall impact of access interventions, and assessing the relative contribution of the different elements of the model.

Ways of working at the interface between primary and specialist mental healthcare.

Ways of working at the interface between primary and specialist care are considered with discussion of the limits of available evidence and the potential for a new role for psychiatrists in providing supervision and consultation in novel models of care.

Multimorbidity, service organization and clinical decision making in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care professionals often manage patients with multiple long-term health conditions, but managing multimorbidity is challenging given time and resource constraints and interactions between conditions. OBJECTIVE: To explore GP and nurse perceptions of multimorbidity and the influence on service organization and clinical decision making. METHODS: A qualitative interview study with primary care professionals in practices in Greater Manchester, U.K. Interviews were conducted with 15 GPs and 10 practice nurses. RESULTS: Primary care professionals identified tensions between delivering care to meet quality targets and fulfilling the patient's agenda, tensions which are exacerbated in multimorbidity. They were aware of the inconvenience suffered by patients through attendance at multiple clinic appointments when care was structured around individual conditions. They reported difficulties managing patients with multimorbidity in limited consultation time, which led to adoption of an 'additive-sequential' decision-making model which dealt with problems in priority order until consultation resources were exhausted, when further management was deferred. Other challenges included the need for patients to co-ordinate their care, the difficulties of self-management support in multimorbidity and problems of making sense of the relationships between physical and mental health. Doctor and nurse accounts included limited consideration of multimorbidity in terms of the interactions between conditions or synergies between management of different conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care professionals identify a number of challenges in care for multimorbidity and adopt a particular model of decision making to deliver care for multiple individual conditions. However, they did not describe specific decision making around managing multimorbidity per se.