Usability and Feasibility of the Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid in a Community Program for First-Episode Psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: Although antipsychotic medications are considered first-line treatment for psychosis, rates of discontinuation and nonadherence are high, and debate persists about their use. This pilot study aimed to explore the usability, feasibility, and potential impact of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention, the Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid (APM-DA), for decisions about use of antipsychotic medications. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted with 17 participants in a first-episode psychosis program. Nine participants received the APM-DA, and eight received usual care. RESULTS: After their appointments, intervention group participants had less decisional conflict and greater satisfaction with decisions than control group participants had. Use of the APM-DA did not increase appointment length. Comparison of the intervention outcomes with the control outcomes was limited because of the small sample. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the feasibility and usability of an SDM process via the use of the APM-DA in routine community psychosis care.

Evaluating the feasibility of a decision aid to promote shared decision making among young adults with first-episode psychosis: protocol for a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Young adults ages 18 to 25 with first episode psychosis (FEP) have an increased risk of discontinuation antipsychotic medications and psychiatric service disengagement that lead to symptom exacerbation and deterioration. We seek to (1) examine the feasibility, usability, and potential impact of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid (DA) on decision-making, adherence to the decision made, and service engagement among young adults with FEP and (2) understand the role of additional patient-level factors on SDM. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial is being conducted in a coordinated specialty care community program for FEP in an urban setting. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention, the Antipsychotic Medication Decision Aid, or treatment as usual. Patients receive their assigned intervention before their medication appointment with the psychiatrist and complete four interviews: before the appointment (T0), after the appointment (T1), and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups (T2 and T3). The study staff and participating psychiatrists are not blinded to the intervention. The data are de-identified to maintain blinding during the analysis process. The primary aims are feasibility of intervention delivery and research procedures and preliminary impact of the intervention on SDM-related outcomes, medication adherence, and service engagement. As a secondary aim, we will explore the contribution of personality and motivation variables, clinical relationships, cognitive functioning, and mental-health-related stigma to SDM. If the sample size permits, we plan to conduct parametric tests such as independent-samples t tests at T1 to compare differences in SDM, adherence, and engagement scales. In the case of a small sample size, we will use non-parametric tests and descriptive statistics. DISCUSSION: This protocol outlines the methodology for a feasibility pilot comparing the effect of a novel SDM Antipsychotic Medication encounter DA with treatment as usual on SDM, medication adherence, and service engagement in FEP care. SDM is endorsed as a framework for use in FEP and antipsychotic pharmacotherapy, but its impact on adherence and health outcomes is unclear. Understanding the potential contribution of an SDM Antipsychotic Medication DA compared with usual care in psychosis pharmacotherapy is critical. The study will help answer several key questions new to SDM research, including the contribution of personality and clinical relationships to SDM in mental health and psychosis in particular. The study will serve to gather feasibility data to inform future studies and scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics approval was obtained through Temple University's institutional review board (IRB) and the City of Philadelphia's Department of Public Health IRB. The study has been retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04373590 on 29 April 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04373590?term=NCT04373590&draw=2&rank=1.

Prescription drug coverage and seniors: how well are states closing the gap?

As policymakers debate adding a drug benefit to Medicare, many states are attempting to provide drug coverage for low-income seniors through Medicaid and state-funded pharmacy assistance programs. This 2001 survey of seniors in eight states finds marked differences among states in the percentage of seniors with coverage and in the sources providing coverage. Among low-income seniors, a range of 20 percent (New York and California) to 38 percent (Michigan and Texas) lacked drug coverage. In all states Medicaid was an important source of coverage for the poor, but the depth of Medicaid drug coverage varied widely across states. Even states with pharmacy assistance programs fell far short of closing the prescription coverage gap for low-income seniors. Finally, the study finds that classifying beneficiaries as either having coverage or not misses major differences in depth of coverage, with some sources of coverage appearing only marginally better than no coverage at all. With erosion of state and private sources of prescription benefits expected, the findings speak to the need for a national policy solution.