Using epidemiological evidence to forecast population need for early treatment programmes in mental health: a generalisable Bayesian prediction methodology applied to and validated for first-episode psychosis in England.

Background: Mental health policy makers require evidence-based information to optimise effective care provision based on local need, but tools are unavailable. Aims: To develop and validate a population-level prediction model for need for early intervention in psychosis (EIP) care for first-episode psychosis (FEP) in England up to 2025, based on epidemiological evidence and demographic projections. Method: We used Bayesian Poisson regression to model small-area-level variation in FEP incidence for people aged 16-64 years. We compared six candidate models, validated against observed National Health Service FEP data in 2017. Our best-fitting model predicted annual incidence case-loads for EIP services in England up to 2025, for probable FEP, treatment in EIP services, initial assessment by EIP services and referral to EIP services for 'suspected psychosis'. Forecasts were stratified by gender, age and ethnicity, at national and Clinical Commissioning Group levels. Results: A model with age, gender, ethnicity, small-area-level deprivation, social fragmentation and regional cannabis use provided best fit to observed new FEP cases at national and Clinical Commissioning Group levels in 2017 (predicted 8112, 95% CI 7623-8597; observed 8038, difference of 74 [0.92%]). By 2025, the model forecasted 11 067 new treated cases per annum (95% CI 10383-11740). For every 10 new treated cases, 21 and 23 people would be assessed by and referred to EIP services for suspected psychosis, respectively. Conclusions: Our evidence-based methodology provides an accurate, validated tool to inform clinical provision of EIP services about future population need for care, based on local variation of major social determinants of psychosis.

Moderating factors for the effectiveness of group art therapy for schizophrenia: secondary analysis of data from the MATISSE randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Although some studies suggest that art therapy may be useful in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a recent large trial of group art therapy found no clinical advantage over standard care, but the study population was heterogeneous and uptake of the intervention was poor. This study aimed to investigate whether art therapy was more effective for specific subgroups of patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial of group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia (n = 140) versus standard care alone (n = 137). Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores at 12 months were compared between trial arms. Interaction between intervention effect and different subgroups, including those with more severe negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and those who expressed a preference for art therapy prior to randomisation, was tested using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: The clinical effectiveness of group art therapy did not significantly differ between participants with more or less severe negative symptoms [interaction for difference in PANSS = 1.7, 95 % CI (-8.6 to 12.1), P = 0.741], or between those who did and did not express a preference for art therapy [interaction = 3.9, 95 % CI (-6.7 to 14.5), P = 0.473]. None of the other exploratory subgroups suggested differences in intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of greater improvement in clinical symptoms of schizophrenia for those with more severe negative symptoms or those with a preference for art therapy. Identification of patients with schizophrenia who may benefit most from group art therapy remains elusive.

Activity groups for people with schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: UK guidelines recommend that patients with schizophrenia are offered access to social activities, however, the impact of such interventions have not been examined in a large randomized trial. AIMS: To investigate the effect of an activity group intervention on mental health and global functioning 12 months after randomization compared to standard care alone. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the MATISSE study. Primary outcomes were global functioning, assessed using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and mental health symptoms measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: About 140 participants were randomized to activity groups and 137 to standard care alone. Follow-up data were collected from 242 (87%) participants. Mental health improved significantly among those offered activity groups (change in PANSS score = -6.0, 95% CI -2.3 to -9.8) but global functioning did not (change in GAF score = 0.8, 95% CI -1.7 to 3.3). No significant differences were found between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Offering activity groups to patients with schizophrenia was not associated with any additional clinical benefits. There was poor uptake and attendance at activity groups. Interventions that aim to improve negative symptoms may be useful in enabling engagement in psychosocial interventions.

Group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of group art therapy for people with schizophrenia and to test whether any benefits exceed those of an active control treatment. DESIGN: Three arm, rater blinded, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary care services across 15 sites in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 417 people aged 18 or over, who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and provided written informed consent to take part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Participants, stratified by site, were randomised to 12 months of weekly group art therapy plus standard care, 12 months of weekly activity groups plus standard care, or standard care alone. Art therapy and activity groups had up to eight members and lasted for 90 minutes. In art therapy, members were given access to a range of art materials and encouraged to use these to express themselves freely. Members of activity groups were offered various activities that did not involve use of art or craft materials and were encouraged to collectively select those they wanted to pursue. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were global functioning, measured using the global assessment of functioning scale, and mental health symptoms, measured using the positive and negative syndrome scale, 24 months after randomisation. Main secondary outcomes were levels of group attendance, social functioning, and satisfaction with care at 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: 417 participants were assigned to either art therapy (n=140), activity groups (n=140), or standard care alone (n=137). Primary outcomes between the three study arms did not differ. The adjusted mean difference between art therapy and standard care at 24 months on the global assessment of functioning scale was -0.9 (95% confidence interval -3.8 to 2.1), and on the positive and negative syndrome scale was 0.7 (-3.1 to 4.6). Secondary outcomes did not differ between those referred to art therapy or those referred to standard care at 12 or 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Referring people with established schizophrenia to group art therapy as delivered in this trial did not improve global functioning, mental health, or other health related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46150447.