Lived Experience of Health and Wellbeing Among Young People with Early Psychosis in Aotearoa New Zealand.

First episode psychosis (FEP) can disrupt a young person's life and future health. Those with lived experience of FEP can inform effective support. This study investigated how young people with FEP experience good health and wellbeing living in Aotearoa New Zealand. Recent clients of early intervention services (n = 12) shared their stories across varying traditional and creative platforms. Thematic analysis revealed seven themes important for living well with FEP: whanaungatanga (relationships), addressing stigma, finding out who I am with psychosis, getting the basics right, collaborative healthcare, understanding psychosis, and access to resources. The themes informed five supporting processes: whakawhanuangatanga (relationship-building), using holistic approaches, creating space for young people, reframing, and improving access to appropriate resources. These findings deepen our understanding of how we can support young people to live well with FEP. This study highlights the value of creative methods and partnering with lived experience experts to conduct meaningful health research.This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) CTRN12622001323718 on 12/10/2022 "retrospectively registered"; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384775&isReview=true .

Effect of Coffee and Chocolate Ingestion on Clozapine Dose and on Plasma Clozapine and Norclozapine Concentrations in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Some reports point to dietary caffeine intake as a cause of increased plasma clozapine concentrations in certain patients. METHODS: We compared clozapine dose and plasma clozapine and N-desmethylclozapine (norclozapine) concentrations in male and female smokers and nonsmokers in relation to reported (i) coffee (caffeine) and (ii) chocolate (caffeine and theobromine) intake in samples submitted for clozapine therapeutic drug monitoring, 1993-2017. RESULTS: There was information on coffee ingestion for 16,558 samples (8833 patients) from males and 5886 samples (3433 patients) from females and on chocolate ingestion for 12,616 samples (7568 patients) from males and 4677 samples (2939 patients) from females. When smoking was considered, there was no discernible effect of either coffee or chocolate ingestion either on the median dose of clozapine or on the median plasma clozapine and norclozapine concentrations in men and in women. However, cigarette smoking was associated with higher coffee and chocolate consumption. Although male nonsmokers who reported drinking 3 or more cups of coffee daily had significantly higher median plasma clozapine and norclozapine concentrations than those who drank less coffee, they were also prescribed a significantly higher clozapine dose. There was no clear effect of coffee ingestion on plasma clozapine and norclozapine in female nonsmokers. IMPLICATIONS: Inhibition of clozapine metabolism by caffeine at the doses of caffeine normally encountered in those treated with clozapine is unlikely even in male nonsmokers. Measurement of plasma caffeine in an appropriate sample should be considered in any future investigation into a presumed clozapine-caffeine interaction.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy compared to usual treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with psychosis in forensic settings: Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Little direct evidence supports any particular treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in people with schizophrenia, forensic histories, and/or multiple comorbidities. This trial assesses the efficacy and risks of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) for people with PTSD and psychotic disorders receiving forensic care, including inpatients and prisoners. METHOD: Single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing EMDR therapy to wait-list (routine care) in forensic-treated adults with psychotic disorders and PTSD. The primary outcome was clinician-rated PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes included participant-rated PTSD symptoms, psychotic symptoms, social functioning, disability level, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, posttraumatic cognitions, complex posttraumatic difficulties, and adverse events. Blinded investigators assessed outcomes at baseline, and after 10 weeks and 6 months. Analysis of the primary outcome was by a mixed linear model. Twenty-four participants were randomized, recruitment being hindered by COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS: Clinician Administered PTSD Scale mean (SD) scores after 6 months were lower (better) in the EMDR group, 21.3 (13.3), compared with the control group, 31.5 (20.7). The point estimate [95% CI] difference, averaged over two measurement times, was 11.4 [1.3, 21.4], p = .028, favoring EMDR. Self-esteem increased in the EMDR group and depressive symptoms and disability reduced. There were no statistically significant differences in psychotic symptoms or adverse events, although point estimates favored EMDR. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first EMDR trial in mental health inpatient, forensic, or custodial settings, where PTSD is common. There were improvements in PTSD and other symptomatology consistent with EMDR being a safe and effective treatment for PTSD in these settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in prison and forensic services: a qualitative study of lived experience.

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common in people with serious mental illness who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Little evidence exists on EMDR treatment in forensic mental health, with no prior qualitative research exploring lived experience perspectives.Objective: This qualitative study recruited adult forensic mental health patients with PTSD and psychotic disorders, predominantly schizophrenia, who had received EMDR as part of a clinical trial, either in prison or in hospital. We sought to understand their experiences of EMDR therapy while receiving forensic care.Method: Ten in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken and analysed using thematic analysis. We used an inductive, realist approach, reporting the experiences, meanings, and reality of the participants.Results: Five overarching themes were identified. First, severe trauma was ubiquitous and participants felt Seriously Messed Up by their traumatic experiences, with debilitating and enduring PTSD symptoms contributing to offending and psychosis ('giving the voices something to feed on'). Second, EMDR was regarded with Early Scepticism. Third, the therapy itself was initially emotionally taxing and Not Easy but participants generally felt safe and persevered. Fourth, they were often surprised and delighted by results (And it Worked!), describing significant symptom reduction and personal transformation. Lastly, EMDR Fits the Forensic Setting, bringing empowerment in a place perceived as disempowering. People reported changes that increased their hope in a violence-free future.Conclusions: The limited research on EMDR in forensic mental health is unfortunate given how common PTSD is in mentally unwell offenders and its potential to impede recovery and contribute to further offending. This first qualitative study found participants experienced positive transformative change, extending beyond symptom reduction. Themes support previously published quantitative outcomes showing EMDR to be safe and effective in this cohort. EMDR was well suited to a forensic setting and was seen as an empowering therapy.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12618000683235.Study registration: The study was registered on the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Network, registration number ACTRN12618000683235 (registered prospectively, 24 April 2018), https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id = 374682.

This study canvases the lived experiences of forensic patients receiving EMDR for PTSD ­ people whose views are seldom captured. They described being profoundly impacted by trauma, developing debilitating and enduring PTSD symptoms which variably contribute to offending and psychosis.Participants did not have favourable first impressions when they first heard about EMDR, thinking it 'quackery'. However, they were surprised and delighted by results, with the majority describing marked symptom reduction and personal transformation. Having targeted some of the underlying drivers of maladaptive behaviour, people reported hope for a better future.EMDR was well suited to a forensic setting and was seen as an empowering therapy.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with serious mental illness within forensic and rehabilitation services: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is an evidenced-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Forensic mental health services provide assessment and treatment of people with mental illness and a history of criminal offending, or those who are at risk of offending. Forensic mental health services include high, medium, and low-security inpatient settings as well as prison in-reach and community outpatient services. There is a high prevalence of PTSD in forensic settings and posttraumatic experiences can arise in people who violently offend in the context of serious mental illness (SMI). Successful treatment of PTSD may reduce the risk of relapse and improve clinical outcomes for this population. This study aims to assess the efficacy, risk of harm, and acceptability of EMDR within forensic and rehabilitation mental health services, as compared to treatment as usual (routine care). METHODS: This is a single-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing EMDR therapy to the waiting list (routine care). Adult forensic mental health service users (n = 46) with SMI and meeting the criteria for PTSD will be included in the study. Participants will be randomized after baseline assessment to either treatment as usual plus waiting list for EMDR or to treatment as usual plus EMDR. The EMDR condition comprises nine sessions, around 60 min in length delivered weekly, the first of which is a case conceptualization session. The primary outcomes are clinician and participant-rated symptoms of PTSD, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes include psychotic symptoms, social functioning, level of disability, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, post-trauma cognitions, and broad domains of complex posttraumatic difficulties. A trained assessor blinded to the treatment condition will assess outcomes at baseline, 10 weeks, and 6 months. Additionally, grounded theory qualitative methods will be used to explore participant experience of EMDR for a subset of participants. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the currently limited evidence base for EMDR for PTSD in forensic settings. It is the first randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy, risk of harm, and acceptability of EMDR for PTSD in people with SMI in either forensic, mental health inpatient, or custodial settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Network, ACTRN12618000683235. Registered prospectively on 24 April 2018.

Pharmacological treatment for antipsychotic-related constipation.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic-related constipation is a common and serious adverse effect, especially for people taking clozapine. Clozapine has been shown to impede gastrointestinal motility, leading to constipation, and has been reported in up to 60% of patients receiving clozapine. In rare cases, complications can be fatal. Appropriate laxatives should be prescribed to treat constipation in people taking antipsychotics, but there is a lack of guidance on the comparative effectiveness and harms of different agents in this population. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatment for antipsychotic-related constipation is important for clinicians and patients alike. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacologic treatment (versus placebo or compared against another treatment) for antipsychotic-related constipation (defined as constipated patients of any age, who are treated with antipsychotics, regardless of dose, in which constipation is considered to be an antipsychotic-related side effect). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 June 2015), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in this register. We also handsearched bibliographies and contacted relevant authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in patients with antipsychotic-related constipation. Pharmacological treatments included laxatives and other medicines that could reasonably be used to combat constipation in this population (e.g. anticholinergic agents, like bethanecol). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from all included studies and assessed trials for risk of bias. A third author reviewed 20% of trials. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table. We discussed any disagreement, documented decisions, and attempted to contact study authors when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two relevant Chinese studies (N = 480) that contributed data to this review. Both studies were over ten years old and poorly reported, lacking descriptions of contemporary CONSORT reporting prerequisites, such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, participant flow, how the sample size was determined, or how outcomes were measured. The studies also did not report trial registration, pre-specified protocols, consent processes, ethical review, or funding source. We were unsuccessful in making contact with the authors to clarify the missing details. We classified both studies as having an overall high risk of bias.One study compared glycerol suppository with the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) approaches of tuina massage and acupuncture. Compared to tuina massage, glycerol laxative was less effective in relieving constipation at both two days after treatment (1 RCT; N = 120; RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.89 to 4.39; very low-quality evidence), and three days (1 RCT; N = 120; RR 4.80, CI 1.96 to 11.74, very low-quality evidence). Favourable results were also seen for acupuncture at two days (1 RCT; N = 120; RR 3.50; 95% CI 2.18 to 5.62; very low-quality evidence), and at three days (1 RCT; N = 120; RR 8.00, 95% CI 2.54 to 25.16; very low-quality evidence).The other study compared mannitol, an osmotic laxative, with rhubarb soda or phenolphthalein. Mannitol was more effective than rhubarb soda or phenolphthalein in trelieving constipation within 24 hours of treatment (1 RCT; N = 240; RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.27, very low-quality evidence).No data were reported for our other important outcomes: need for rescue medication, bowel obstruction (a complication of antipsychotic-related constipation), quality of life, adverse events, leaving the study early, and economic costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We had hoped to find clinically useful evidence appraising the relative merits of the interventions routinely used to manage antipsychotic-related constipation, a common and potentially serious adverse effect of the use of these drugs. The results were disappointing. There were no data comparing the common pharmacological interventions for constipation, such as lactulose, polyethylene glycol, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives, or of novel treatments such as linaclotide. Data available were very poor quality and the trials had a high risk of bias. Data from these biased studies suggested that mannitol, an osmotic laxative, was more effective than rhubarb soda and phenolphthalein in relieving constipation, and a two-week course of glycerol suppositories was less effective than the TCM approaches of tuina massage and acupuncture.Overall, there is insufficient trial-based evidence to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating antipsychotic-related constipation, due to limited, poor quality data (few studies with high risk of bias and no meta-analyses). The methodological limitations in the included studies were obvious, and any conclusions based on their results should be made with caution. Methodologically rigorous RCTs evaluating interventions for treating antipsychotic-related constipation are needed.