Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for people with recent-onset psychosis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention for psychosis is recommended because the first 5 years beyond the first episode is considered the critical period within which individuals have the most potential to maximize their response to treatment and recovery. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been studied extensively in diverse disease groups, but research in people with recent-onset psychosis is still immature. AIM: This review aims to explore the feasibility, acceptability and summarize any effectiveness data on of the MBIs for people with recent-onset psychosis reported by the study authors. METHODS: A systematic search of original intervention research studies relevant to the topic published between January 2000 and August 2019 was conducted with 10 databases. Articles published in English with accessible full text were included. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included, which reported recruitment rates of between 62.5% and 100%, withdrawal rates between 0% and 37.5% and attendance rates of between 56% and 100%. Participants' qualitative feedback indicated high levels of satisfaction with the MBIs. The intervention approaches adopted in the reviewed studies include mindfulness-based interventions, acceptance and commitment therapy and compassion-based interventions. MBIs have produced promising positive effects on participants' psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review confirms that MBIs are generally feasible and acceptable for people with recent-onset psychosis. The preliminary results suggested the potential effects of MBIs in this area. Fully powered randomized controlled trials are suggested to confirm the effectiveness and exploratory studies to gain greater insight into the active components and mechanism of actions of MBIs for recent-onset psychosis.

Psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that individuals who develop severe mental illness (SMI) are also vulnerable to developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), due to increased risk of exposure to traumatic events and social adversity. The effectiveness of trauma-focused psychological interventions (TFPIs) for PTSD in the general population is well-established. TFPIs involve identifying and changing unhelpful beliefs about traumatic experiences, processing of traumatic memories, and developing new ways of responding to cues associated with trauma. Little is known about the potential feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of TFPIs for individuals who have a SMI and PTSD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for PTSD symptoms or other symptoms of psychological distress arising from trauma in people with SMI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Study-Based Register (up until March 10, 2016), screened reference lists of relevant reports and reviews, and contacted trial authors for unpublished and/or specific outcome data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated TFPIs for people with SMI and PTSD, and reported useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (DS, MF, IN) independently screened the titles and abstracts of all references identified, and read short-listed full text papers. We assessed risk of bias in each case. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data, on an intention-to-treat basis. We assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials involving a total of 300 adults with SMI and PTSD are included. These trials evaluated three active intervention therapies: trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR), and brief psychoeducation for PTSD, all delivered via individual sessions. Our main outcomes of interest were PTSD symptoms, quality of life/well-being, symptoms of co-morbid psychosis, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, adverse events and health economic outcomes. 1. TF-CBT versus usual care/waiting list Three trials provided data for this comparison, however, continuous outcome data available were more often found to be skewed than unskewed, leading to the necessity of conducting analyses separately for the two types of continuous data. Using the unskewed data only, results showed no significant differences between TF-CBT and usual care in reducing clinician-rated PTSD symptoms at short term (1 RCT, n =13, MD 13.15, 95% CI -4.09 to 30.39,low-quality evidence). Limited unskewed data showed equivocal results between groups in terms of general quality of life (1 RCT, n = 39, MD -0.60, 95% CI -4.47 to 3.27, low-quality evidence), symptoms of psychosis (1 RCT, n = 9, MD -6.93, 95% CI -34.17 to 20.31, low-quality evidence), and anxiety (1 RCT, n = 9, MD 12.57, 95% CI -5.54 to 30.68, very low-quality evidence), at medium term. The only available data on depression symptoms were skewed and were equivocal across groups at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 48, MD 3.26, 95% CI -3.66 to 10.18, very low-quality evidence). TF-CBT was not associated with more adverse events (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.31, low-quality evidence) at medium term. No data were available for health economic outcomes. Very limited data for PTSD and other symptoms were available over the long term. 2. EMDR versus waiting listOne trial provided data for this comparison. Favourable effects were found for EMDR in terms of PTSD symptom severity at medium term but data were skewed (1 RCT, n = 83, MD -12.31, 95% CI -22.72 to -1.90, very low-quality evidence). EMDR was not associated with more adverse events (1 RCT, n = 102, RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.85, low-quality evidence). No data were available for quality of life, symptoms of co-morbid psychosis, depression, anxiety and health economics.3. TF-CBT versus EMDROne trial compared TF-CBT with EMDR. PTSD symptom severity, based on skewed data (1 RCT, n = 88, MD -1.69, 95% CI -12.63 to 9.23, very low-quality evidence) was similar between treatment groups. No data were available for the other main outcomes.4. TF-CBT versus psychoeducationOne trial compared TF-CBT with psychoeducation. Results were equivocal for PTSD symptom severity (1 RCT, n = 52, MD 0.23, 95% CI -14.66 to 15.12, low-quality evidence) and general quality of life (1 RCT, n = 49, MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.95, low-quality evidence) by medium term. No data were available for the other outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very few trials have investigated TFPIs for individuals with SMI and PTSD. Results from trials of TF-CBT are limited and inconclusive regarding its effectiveness on PTSD, or on psychotic symptoms or other symptoms of psychological distress. Only one trial evaluated EMDR and provided limited preliminary evidence favouring EMDR compared to waiting list. Comparing TF-CBT head-to-head with EMDR and brief psychoeducation respectively, showed no clear effect for either therapy. Both TF-CBT and EMDR do not appear to cause more (or less) adverse effects, compared to waiting list or usual care; these findings however, are mostly based on low to very low-quality evidence. Further larger scale trials are now needed to provide high-quality evidence to confirm or refute these preliminary findings, and to establish which intervention modalities and techniques are associated with improved outcomes, especially in the long term.

A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a protocol of evidence-based conservative care with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) of less than 6 weeks' duration. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial. SETTING: Three practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 149 eligible patients were invited to participate in the study, with 118 volunteers being consented and randomly allocated to a treatment group. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group received evidence-based treatments for acute nonspecific LBP as prescribed in a structured protocol of care developed for this study. The control group received usual conservative care. Participants in both groups could receive up to 7 treatments over a 4-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes. RESULTS: Total dropout rate was 14% (n=16), with 13% of data missing. Missing data were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Participants in both groups received an average of 6 treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in disability (ODI) scores at the end of week 4 (P=.33), but there was for pain (VAS) scores (P<.001). Interestingly, there were statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both disability and pain measures at the midpoint of the treatment period (P<.001). Patient satisfaction with care was equally high (85%) in both groups. Minimally clinically important differences in scores and number needed to treat scores (NNT<6) indicated that the experimental treatment (protocol of care) offered a clinically meaningful benefit over the control treatment (usual care), particularly at the midpoint of the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the 2 treatment groups were similar based on primary or secondary outcome measure scores for the full treatment period (4 weeks, with up to 7 treatments). However, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in both disability and pain scores at week 2 (midpoint) with 4 treatments, suggesting that the protocol of care had a more rapid effect than usual care.

Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Complex interventions have components which can vary in different contexts. Using the Realistic Evaluation framework, this study investigates how a complex health services intervention led to developments in shared care for people with long-term mental illness. METHODS: A retrospective qualitative interview study was carried out alongside a randomised controlled trial. The multi-faceted intervention supported by facilitators aimed to develop systems for shared care. The study was set in London. Participants included 46 practitioners and managers from 12 participating primary health care teams and their associated community mental health teams. Interviews focussed on how and why out comes were achieved, and were analysed using a framework incorporating context and intervening mechanisms. RESULTS: Thirty-one interviews were completed to create 12 case studies. The enquiry highlighted the importance of the catalysing, doing and reviewing functions of the facilitation process. Other facets of the intervention were less dominant. The intervention catalysed the allocation of link workers and liaison arrangements in nearly all practices. Case discussions between link workers and GPs improved individual care as well as helping link workers become part of the primary care team; but sustained integration into the team depended both on flexibility and experience of the link worker, and upon selection of relevant patients for the case discussions. The doing function of facilitators included advice and, at times, manpower, to help introduce successful systems for reviewing care, however time spent developing IT systems was rarely productive. The reviewing function of the intervention was weak and sometimes failed to solve problems in the development of liaison or recall. CONCLUSION: Case discussions and improved liaison at times of crisis, rather than for proactive recall, were the key functions of shared care contributing to the success of Mental Health Link. This multifaceted intervention had most impact through catalysing and doing, whereas the reviewing function of the facilitation was weak, and other components were seen as less important. Realistic Evaluation provided a useful theoretical framework for this process evaluation, by allowing a specific focus on context. Although complex interventions might appear 'out of control', due to their varied manifestation in different situations, context sensitive process evaluations can help identify the intervention's key functions.

Competence in nursing practice: A controversial concept--A focused review of literature.

The competency-based approach to education, training and assessment has surfaced as a key policy in industrialised nations. Following the transition of nurse preparation to the higher education sector the need to attenuate the tension of interests between employer and educator arose. While the competency-based approach has the potential to fulfil this, the application of competence to nursing is controversial and little consensus exists on definition. This paper synthesises a significant volume of literature relating to the acceptability and definition of the concept of competence with regard to nursing practice. Subsequent to a focused review of literature, problems inherent to the definition and utilisation of the concept of nursing competence are discussed. Because nursing requires complex combinations of knowledge, performance, skills and attitudes, a holistic definition of competence needs to be agreed upon and operationalised. This could facilitate greater acceptance of the concept and also underpin the development of competency standards and the tools required for the assessment of such.

Competence in nursing practice: a controversial concept--a focused review of literature.

The competency-based approach to education, training and assessment has surfaced as a key policy in industrialised nations. Following the transition of nurse preparation to the higher education sector the need to attenuate the tension of interests between employer and educator arose. While the competency-based approach has the potential to fulfil this, the application of competence to nursing is controversial and little consensus exists on definition. This paper synthesises a significant volume of literature relating to the acceptability and definition of the concept of competence with regard to nursing practice. Subsequent to a focused review of literature, problems inherent to the definition and utilisation of the concept of nursing competence are discussed. Because nursing requires complex combinations of knowledge, performance, skills and attitudes, a holistic definition of competence needs to be agreed upon and operationalised. This could facilitate greater acceptance of the concept and also underpin the development of competency standards and the tools required for the assessment of such.

Assessing practice of student nurses: methods, preparation of assessors and student views.

AIMS: To describe the methods of measuring progress in achieving competence of preregistration nursing and midwifery students used by institutions of higher and further education in Scotland and to describe the philosophy and approaches to competence assessment in each institution. BACKGROUND: Institutions of higher and further education in Scotland operate a variety of schemes to assess the clinical practice of student nurses. These are based on different philosophies and practices and this raises the question of which are valid and reliable. METHODS: All institutions in Scotland providing validated Diploma of Higher Education programmes for preregistration nursing and midwifery participated in this study. Data were collected by postal questionnaire, review of programme documentation and supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. The directors of the 13 programmes (seven nursing and six midwifery programmes) were surveyed and also 12 group interviews with students (six nursing and six midwifery student groups) from seven institutions. Students from all four branches were represented and 72 students (36 nurses and 36 midwives) were interviewed. RESULTS: Four key findings were identified and related to competence assessment methods, preparation of practice assessors, consequences of failure to meet expected level of outcome and students' views. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a change in theoretical frameworks of assessment instruments used since the 1992 programmes commenced and only a limited number of approaches to clinical assessment are used in Scotland. Students' views suggested that they had little confidence in methods of clinical competence assessment and there was no formal validity and reliability testing within institutions. A lack of consistency in the training of student assessors in the clinical areas was identified. Some of these issues may be resolved with the development of a national instrument for competence assessment.

The validity and reliability of methods to assess the competence to practise of pre-registration nursing and midwifery students.

This paper reports findings from a study funded by the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland to test selected nursing and midwifery clinical competence assessment tools for reliability and validity. The study, which took place over two years from July 1997, involved comparing items in the selected tools with statutory competencies for nurses and midwives, collecting assessment data from a sample of 257 nursing and 43 midwifery students in four educational institutions and administering additional assessment measures (the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire (NCQ) (Bartlett et al., An evaluation of pre-registration nursing education: a literature review and comparative study of graduate outcomes, Oxford Centre for Health Care Research & Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, 1998) and the Key Areas Assessment Instrument-KAAI) to the total student sample (and to their lecturers and practice assessors) at two time points which were six months apart. Our focus was the programme-specific clinical competence assessment tools but by testing these tools we also provide evidence on the validity of other methods of competence assessment. Validity of the methods was assessed, primarily, by calculating multivariate and univariate correlation coefficients between them. The NCQ and KAAI were analysed for internal consistency. The NCQ and the versions of KAAI for lecturers and practice assessors were found to have good internal consistency. The version of the KAAI tool developed for students showed reasonable internal consistency for nursing students, but less consistency for midwifery students. Correlational analysis of data collected on students showed that there is little or no relationship between most of the clinical competence assessment methods in current use, or between these methods and those introduced by the research team. This finding supports previous research, particularly in medical education and confirms that the different methods address different abilities.A clear finding from this study is that no single method is appropriate for assessing clinical competence. A multi-method UK-wide strategy for clinical competence assessment for nursing and midwifery is needed if we are to be sure that assessment reveals whether or not students have achieved the complex repertoire of knowledge, skills and attitudes required for competent practice.