Intensive case management for severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials. MAIN RESULTS: The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

NICE v. SIGN on psychosis and schizophrenia: same roots, similar guidelines, different interpretations.

A recent editorial claimed that the 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on psychosis and schizophrenia, unlike its equivalent 2013 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guideline, is biased towards psychosocial treatments and against drug treatments. In this paper we underline that the NICE and SIGN guidelines recommend similar interventions, but that the NICE guideline has more rigorous methodology. Our analysis suggests that the authors of the editorial appear to have succumbed to bias themselves.

Barriers to shared decision making in mental health care: qualitative study of the Joint Crisis Plan for psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing calls for shared decision making (SDM), the precise mechanisms for its attainment are unclear. Sharing decisions in mental health care may be especially complex. Fluctuations in service user capacity and significant power differences are particular barriers. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: We trialled a form of facilitated SDM that aimed to generate patients' treatment preferences in advance of a possible relapse. The 'Joint Crisis Plan' (JCP) intervention was trialled in four mental health trusts in England between 2008 and 2011. This qualitative study used grounded theory methods to analyse focus group and interview data to understand how stakeholders perceived the intervention and the barriers to SDM in the form of a JCP. RESULTS: Fifty service users with psychotic disorders and 45 clinicians participated in focus groups or interviews between February 2010 and November 2011. Results suggested four barriers to clinician engagement in the JCP: (i) ambivalence about care planning; (ii) perceptions that they were 'already doing SDM'; (iii) concerns regarding the clinical 'appropriateness of service users' choices'; and (iv) limited 'availability of service users' choices'. Service users reported barriers to SDM in routine practice, most of which were addressed by the JCP process. Barriers identified by clinicians led to their lack of constructive engagement in the process, undermining the service users' experience. CONCLUSIONS: Future work requires interventions targeted at the engagement of clinicians addressing their concerns about SDM. Particular strategies include organizational investment in implementation of service users' choices and directly training clinicians in SDM communication processes.

Investigating trajectories of social recovery in individuals with first-episode psychosis: a latent class growth analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social disability is a hallmark of severe mental illness yet individual differences and factors predicting outcome are largely unknown. AIM: To explore trajectories and predictors of social recovery following a first episode of psychosis (FEP). METHOD: A sample of 764 individuals with FEP were assessed on entry into early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services and followed up over 12 months. Social recovery profiles were examined using latent class growth analysis. RESULTS: Three types of social recovery profile were identified: Low Stable (66%), Moderate-Increasing (27%), and High-Decreasing (7%). Poor social recovery was predicted by male gender, ethnic minority status, younger age at onset of psychosis, increased negative symptoms, and poor premorbid adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Social disability is prevalent in FEP, although distinct recovery profiles are evident. Where social disability is present on entry into EIP services it can remain stable, highlighting a need for targeted intervention.

Layers of listening: qualitative analysis of the impact of early intervention services for first-episode psychosis on carers' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention services (EIS) comprise low-stigma, youth-friendly mental health teams for young people undergoing first-episode psychosis (FEP). Engaging with the family of the young person is central to EIS policy and practice.AimsBy analysing carers' accounts of their daily lives and affective challenges during a relative's FEP against the background of wider research into EIS, this paper explores relationships between carers' experiences and EIS. METHOD: Semi-structured longitudinal interviews with 80 carers of young people with FEP treated through English EIS. RESULTS: Our data suggest that EIS successfully aid carers to support their relatives, particularly through the provision of knowledge about psychosis and medications. However, paradoxical ramifications of these user-focused engagements also emerge; they risk leaving carers' emotions unacknowledged and compounding an existing lack of help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: By focusing on EIS's engagements with carers, this paper draws attention to an urgent broader question: as a continuing emphasis on care outside the clinic space places family members at the heart of the care of those with severe mental illness, we ask: who can, and should, support carers, and in what ways?

Improving Therapeutic Relationships: Joint Crisis Planning for Individuals With Psychotic Disorders.

Outcomes for individuals with psychosis remain far from acceptable. Recently, prominent psychiatrists have called for an improved understanding of the impact of social contexts, and how social contexts might influence the development and maintenance of mental health problems. A key social context for individuals with psychosis is the therapeutic relationship. As part of a trial of joint crisis planning in England, this qualitative study aimed to determine the mechanism through which joint crisis planning might affect the therapeutic relationship. Results suggest that routine processes in mental health care are affected by policy and organizational requirements for risk mitigation-aspects that undermine person-centered approaches. In contrast, strong therapeutic relationships are characterized by individualized care and reliable and respectful treatment. The Joint Crisis Plan intervention partially succeeded in reducing contextual influences on routine role enactments, facilitating the demonstration of respect and improving the therapeutic relationship.

Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The CRIMSON (CRisis plan IMpact: Subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement) study is an individual level, randomised controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs) with treatment as usual for people with severe mental illness. The JCP is a negotiated statement by a patient of treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, when he or she might be unable to express clear views. We assessed whether the additional use of JCPs improved patient outcomes compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they had at least one psychiatric admission in the previous 2 years and were on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. The study was done with 64 generic and specialist community mental health teams in four English mental health care provider organisations (trusts). Hypotheses tested were that, compared with the control group, the intervention group would experience: fewer compulsory admissions (primary outcome); fewer psychiatric admissions; shorter psychiatric stays; lower perceived coercion; improved therapeutic relationships; and improved engagement. We stratified participants by centre. The research team but not participants nor clinical staff were masked to allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number ISRCTN11501328. FINDINGS: 569 participants were randomly assigned (285 to the intervention group and 284 to the control group). No significant treatment effect was seen for the primary outcome (56 [20%] sectioned in the control group and 49 [18%] in the JCP group; odds ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·58-1·39, p=0·63]) or any secondary outcomes, with the exception of an improved secondary outcome of therapeutic relationships (17·3 [7·6] vs 16·0 [7·1]; adjusted difference -1·28 [95% CI -2·56 to -0·01, p=0·049]). Qualitative data supported this finding. INTERPRETATION: Our findings are inconsistent with two earlier JCP studies, and show that the JCP is not significantly more effective than treatment as usual. There is evidence to suggest the JCPs were not fully implemented in all study sites, and were combined with routine clinical review meetings which did not actively incorporate patients' preferences. The study therefore raises important questions about implementing new interventions in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research.

What service users with psychotic disorders want in a mental health crisis or relapse: thematic analysis of joint crisis plans.

PURPOSE: Recent legislation and guidance in England emphasises the importance of service user choice in care planning. However, it is not obvious how best to facilitate choices in care planning, and some clinicians are concerned that service users may make 'unwise' decisions. This study aimed to examine mental health service users' preferences and priorities in the event of a future mental health crisis or relapse. METHOD: Thematic analysis of 221 joint crisis plans (JCP) developed by service users and their clinical team as part of the CRIMSON randomised controlled trial. Participants had a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, at least one psychiatric admission in the past 2 years, contact with a community mental health team, and complex care needs. RESULTS: Two major categories of preferences were identified: first the manner in which crisis care would be delivered; and second, specific treatment interventions. Most service users requested full involvement in decisions about their care, clear and consistent treatment plans, access to familiar clinicians who knew them well, and to be treated with respect and compassion. Some service users requested hospitalisation, but the majority preferred alternatives. The most frequently preferred intervention was care by a home treatment team. Just under half made a treatment refusal, the majority being for specific medications, alternatives were offered. CONCLUSIONS: Joint crisis planning resulted in service users making choices that were clinically reasonable. The technique employed by JCPs appeared to empower service users by engaging them in a productive dialogue with their clinicians.

Identifying 2SLGBTQ+ individuals experiencing homelessness using Point-in-Time counts: Evidence from the 2021 Toronto Street Needs Assessment survey.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to utilize the data generated by the City of Toronto, Street Needs Assessment conducted in 2021 to explore the prevalence, causes, experiences, and characteristics of 2-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (2SLGBTQ+) individuals experiencing homelessness in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Data was collected by the City of Toronto during its Street Needs Assessment in April 2021. The Street Needs Assessment is a needs assessment survey and Point-in-Time count of people experiencing homelessness across the city of Toronto. Homelessness included any individual who was sleeping outdoors or staying in City-administered emergency/transitional shelters and shelter motels/hotels on the night of data collection. The Street Needs Assessment survey was administered to clients by trained shelter and outreach staff using a computer or mobile device. To ensure that survey questions were 2SLGBTQ+ inclusive, questions on sexual orientation, gender identity, and 2SLGBTQ+ identity were included in the survey. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-eight 2SLGBTQ+ individuals completed the survey. Compared to non-2SLGBTQ+ individuals experiencing homelessness, 2SLGBTQ+ respondents were younger at the time of survey completion and when they first experienced homelessness, were more likely to have been in foster care or a group home, reported higher rates of conflict with and/or abuse by a parent/guardian as their main pathway into homelessness, and were more likely to experience chronic homelessness. CONCLUSION: Our study results demonstrate that Street Needs Assessments and Point-in-Time counts can be used to examine homelessness in marginalized populations, including 2SLGBTQ+ individuals and that sexual orientation and gender identity questions need to be included on future government surveys. The consistency of findings from this study and previous research suggests that 2SLGBTQ+ individuals experience a significant need for population-based housing and social support services aimed at meeting the needs of 2SLGBTQ+ populations.

Reducing duration of untreated psychosis: care pathways to early intervention in psychosis services.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce treatment delay in first-episode psychosis have met with mixed results. Systematic reviews highlight the need for greater understanding of delays within the care pathway if successful strategies are to be developed. AIMS: To document the care-pathway components of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) and their link with delays in accessing specialised early intervention services (EIS). To model the likely impact on efforts to reduce DUP of targeted changes in the care pathway. METHOD: Data for 343 individuals from the Birmingham, UK, lead site of the National EDEN cohort study were analysed. RESULTS: A third of the cohort had a DUP exceeding 6 months. The greatest contribution to DUP for the whole cohort came from delays within mental health services, followed by help-seeking delays. It was found that delay in reaching EIS was strongly correlated with longer DUP. CONCLUSIONS: Community education and awareness campaigns to reduce DUP may be constrained by later delays within mental health services, especially access to EIS. Our methodology, based on analysis of care pathways, will have international application when devising strategies to reduce DUP.

Supported employment for adults with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People who suffer from severe mental disorder experience high rates of unemployment. Supported employment is an approach to vocational rehabilitation that involves trying to place clients in competitive jobs without any extended preparation. The Individual placement and support (IPS) model is a carefully specified form of supported employment. OBJECTIVES: 1. To review the effectiveness of supported employment compared with other approaches to vocational rehabilitation or treatment as usual.2. Secondary objectives were to establish how far:(a) fidelity to the IPS model affects the effectiveness of supported employment,(b) the effectiveness of supported employment can be augmented by the addition of other interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, handsearches and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, of working age (normally 16 to 70 years), where supported employment was compared with other vocational approaches or treatment as usual. Outcomes such as days in employment, job stability, global state, social functioning, mental state, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (YK and KK) independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% (CI). We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. A random-effects model was also employed where heterogeneity was present. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials were included in this review (total 2265 people). In terms of our primary outcome (employment: days in competitive employment, over one year follow-up), supported employment seems to significantly increase levels of any employment obtained during the course of studies (7 RCTs, n = 951, RR 3.24 CI 2.17 to 4.82, very low quality of evidence). Supported employment also seems to increase length of competitive employment when compared with other vocational approaches (1 RCT, n = 204, MD 70.63 CI 43.22 to 94.04, very low quality evidence). Supported employment also showed some advantages in other secondary outcomes. It appears to increase length (in days) of any form of paid employment (2 RCTs, n = 510, MD 84.94 CI 51.99 to 117.89, very low quality evidence) and job tenure (weeks) for competitive employment (1 RCT, n = 204, MD 9.86 CI 5.36 to 14.36, very low quality evidence) and any paid employment (3 RCTs, n = 735, MD 3.86 CI -2.94 to 22.17, very low quality evidence). Furthermore, one study indicated a decreased time to first competitive employment in the long term for people in supported employment (1 RCT, n = 204, MD -161.60 CI -225.73 to -97.47, very low quality evidence). A large amount of data were considerably skewed, and therefore not included in meta-analysis, which makes any meaningful interpretation of the vast amount of data very difficult. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggests that supported employment is effective in improving a number of vocational outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness, though there appears to exist some overall risk of bias in terms of the quality of individual studies. All studies should report a standard set of vocational and non-vocational outcomes that are relevant to the consumers and policy-makers. Studies with longer follow-up should be conducted to answer or address the critical question about durability of effects.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurological soft signs in relatives of people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Neurological soft signs are subtle but observable impairments in motor and sensory functions that are not localized to a specific area of the brain. Neurological soft signs are common in schizophrenia. It has been established that soft signs meet two of five criteria for an endophenotype, namely: association with the illness, and state independence. This review investigated whether soft signs met a further criterion for an endophenotype, namely familial association. It was hypothesized that if familial association were present then neurological soft signs would be: (a) more common in first-degree relatives of people with schizophrenia than in controls; and (b) more common in people with schizophrenia than in their first-degree relatives. METHOD: A systematic search identified potentially eligible studies in the EMBASE (1980-2011), OVID - MEDLINE (1950-2011) and PsycINFO (1806-2011) databases. Studies were included if they carried out a three-way comparison of levels of soft signs between people with schizophrenia, their first-degree relatives, and normal controls. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and cross-checked by double entry. RESULTS: After screening 8678 abstracts, seven studies with 1553 participants were identified. Neurological soft signs were significantly more common in first-degree relatives of people with schizophrenia than in controls (pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (c.i) 0.59-1.89). Neurological soft signs were also significantly more common in people with schizophrenia than in their first-degree relatives (SMD 0.92, 95% c.i 0.64-1.20). Sensitivity analyses examining the effects of age and group blinding did not significantly alter the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting that the distribution of neurological soft signs in people with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives is consistent with the endophenotype criterion of familial association.

WITHDRAWN: Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) was developed in the early 1970s as a response to the closing down of psychiatric hospitals. ACT is a team-based approach aiming at keeping ill people in contact with services, reducing hospital admissions and improving outcome, especially social functioning and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative to i. standard community care, ii. traditional hospital-based rehabilitation, and iii. case management. For each of the three comparisons the main outcome indices were i. remaining in contact with the psychiatric services, ii. extent of psychiatric hospital admissions, iii. clinical and social outcome and iv. costs. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of CINAHL (1982-1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were that studies should i. be randomised controlled trials, ii. have compared ACT to standard community care, hospital-based rehabilitation, or case management and iii. have been carried out on people with severe mental disorder the majority of whom were aged from 18 to 65. Studies of ACT were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as "Assertive Community Treatment" or one of its synonyms. Studies of ACT as an alternative to hospital admission, hospital diversion programmes, for those in crisis, were excluded. The reliability of the inclusion criteria were evaluated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three types of outcome data were available: i. categorical data, ii. numerical data based on counts of real life events (count data) and iii. numerical data collected by standardised instruments (scale data). Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked. Peto Odds Ratios and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Numerical count data were extracted twice and cross-checked. Count data could not be combined across studies for technical reasons (the data were skewed) but all relevant observations based on count data were reported in the review. Numerical scale data were subject to a quality assessment. The validity of the quality assessment was itself assessed. Numerical scale data of suitable quality were combined using the standardised mean difference statistic where possible, otherwise the data were reported in the text or 'Other data tables' of the review. MAIN RESULTS: ACT versus standard community care Those receiving ACT were more likely to remain in contact with services than people receiving standard community care (OR 0.51, 99%CI 0.37-0.70). People allocated to ACT were less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving standard community care (OR 0.59, 99%CI 0.41-0.85) and spent less time in hospital. In terms of clinical and social outcome, significant and robust differences between ACT and standard community care were found on i. accommodation status, ii. employment and iii. patient satisfaction. There were no differences between ACT and control treatments on mental state or social functioning. ACT invariably reduced the cost of hospital care, but did not have a clear cut advantage over standard care when other costs were taken into account.ACT versus hospital-based rehabilitation services Those receiving ACT were no more likely to remain in contact with services than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation, but confidence intervals for the odds ratio were wide. People getting ACT were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation (OR 0.2, 99%CI 0.09-0.46) and spent less time in hospital. Those allocated to ACT were significantly more likely to be living independently (OR (for not living independently) 0.19, 99%CI 0.06-0.54), but there were no other significant and robust differences in clinical or social outcome. There was insufficient data on costs to permit comparison.ACT versus case management There were no data on numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services or on numbers admitted to hospital. People allocated to ACT consistently spent fewer days in hospital than those given case management. There was insufficient data to permit robust comparisons of clinical or social outcome. The cost of hospital care was consistently less for those allocated to ACT, but ACT did not have a clear cut advantage over case management when other costs were taken into account. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ACT is a clinically effective approach to managing the care of severely mentally ill people in the community. ACT, if correctly targeted on high users of in-patient care, can substantially reduce the costs of hospital care whilst improving outcome and patient satisfaction. Policy makers, clinicians, and consumers should support the setting up of ACT teams.

Early intervention for psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). MAIN RESULTS: Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.

WITHDRAWN: Case management for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1960s, in many parts of the world, large psychiatric were closed down and people were treated in outpatient clinics, day centres or community mental health centres. Rising readmission rates suggested that this type of community care may be less effective than anticipated. In the 1970s case management arose as a means of co-ordinating the care of severely mentally ill people in the community. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of case management as an approach to caring for severely mentally ill people in the community. Case management was compared against standard care on four main indices: (i) numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services; (ii) extent of psychiatric hospital admissions; (iii) clinical and social outcome; and (iv) costs. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of CINAHL (1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were that studies should be randomised controlled trials that (i) had compared case management to standard community care; and (ii) had involved people with severe mental disorder mainly between the ages of 18-65. Studies of case management were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as 'case' or 'care' management rather than 'Assertive Community Treatment' or 'ACT'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A study was carried out to test the reliability of the inclusion criteria. Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked, any disagreements being resolved by discussion. Odds ratios and the number needed to treat were estimated. Continuous data collected by a measuring instrument was only included if the instrument (i) had been described in a peer-reviewed journal; (ii) was a self-report or had been completed by an independent rater; and (iii) provided a summary score for a broad area of functioning. Normally distributed continuous data were included if means and standard deviations were available. Non-normal data were included if analysed either after transformation or using non-parametric methods. Tests for heterogeneity were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Case management increased the numbers remaining in contact with services (for case management odds ratio = 0.70; 99%CI 0.50-0.98; n=1210). Case management approximately doubled the numbers admitted to psychiatric hospital (OR 1.84; 99% CI 1.33-2.57; n=1300). Except for a positive finding on compliance, from one study, case management showed no significant advantages over standard care on any psychiatric or social variable. Cost data did not favour case management but insufficient information was available to permit definitive conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Case management ensures that more people remain in contact with psychiatric services (one extra person remains in contact for every 15 people who receive case management), but it also increases hospital admission rates. Present evidence suggests that case management also increases duration of hospital admissions, but this is not certain. Whilst there is some evidence that case management improves compliance, it does not produce clinically significant improvement in mental state, social functioning, or quality of life. There is no evidence that case management improves outcome on any other clinical or social variables. Present evidence suggests that case management increases health care costs, perhaps substantially, although this is not certain. In summary, therefore, case management is an intervention of questionable value, to the extent that it is doubtful whether it should be offered by community psychiatric services. It is hard to see how policy makers who subscribe to an evidence-based approach can justify retaining case management as 'the cornerstone' of community mental health care. Case management is compared to the main alternative approach (ACT) in a forthcoming Cochrane review.

Day hospital versus admission for acute psychiatric disorders.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient treatment is an expensive way of caring for people with acute psychiatric disorders. It has been proposed that many of those currently treated as inpatients could be cared for in acute psychiatric day hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of day hospital versus inpatient care for people with acute psychiatric disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2010) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We approached trialists to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of day hospital versus inpatient care, for people with acute psychiatric disorders. Studies were ineligible if a majority of participants were under 18 or over 65, or had a primary diagnosis of substance abuse or organic brain disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and cross-checked data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We calculated weighted or standardised means for continuous data. Day hospital trials tend to present similar outcomes in slightly different formats, making it difficult to synthesise data. We therefore sought individual patient data so that we could re-analyse outcomes in a common format. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (involving 2685 people) met the inclusion criteria. We obtained individual patient data for four trials (involving 646 people). We found no difference in the number lost to follow-up by one year between day hospital care and inpatient care (5 RCTs, n = 1694, RR 0.94 CI 0.82 to 1.08). There is moderate evidence that the duration of index admission is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (4 RCTs, n = 1582, WMD 27.47 CI 3.96 to 50.98). There is very low evidence that the duration of day patient care (adjusted days/month) is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (3 RCTs, n = 265, WMD 2.34 days/month CI 1.97 to 2.70). There is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for the being readmitted to in/day patient care after discharge (5 RCTs, n = 667, RR 0.91 CI 0.72 to 1.15). It is likely that there is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for being unemployed at the end of the study (1 RCT, n = 179, RR 0.88 CI 0.66 to 1.19), for quality of life (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.01 CI -0.13 to 0.15) or for treatment satisfaction (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.06 CI -0.18 to 0.30). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Caring for people in acute day hospitals is as effective as inpatient care in treating acutely ill psychiatric patients. However, further data are still needed on the cost effectiveness of day hospitals.

Structure and stability of symptoms in first episode psychosis: a longitudinal network approach.

Early psychosis is characterised by heterogeneity in illness trajectories, where outcomes remain poor for many. Understanding psychosis symptoms and their relation to illness outcomes, from a novel network perspective, may help to delineate psychopathology within early psychosis and identify pivotal targets for intervention. Using network modelling in first episode psychosis (FEP), this study aimed to identify: (a) key central and bridge symptoms most influential in symptom networks, and (b) examine the structure and stability of the networks at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Data on 1027 participants with FEP were taken from the National EDEN longitudinal study and used to create regularised partial correlation networks using the 'EBICglasso' algorithm for positive, negative, and depressive symptoms at baseline and at 12-months. Centrality and bridge estimations were computed using a permutation-based network comparison test. Depression featured as a central symptom in both the baseline and 12-month networks. Conceptual disorganisation, stereotyped thinking, along with hallucinations and suspiciousness featured as key bridge symptoms across the networks. The network comparison test revealed that the strength and bridge centralities did not differ significantly between the two networks (C = 0.096153; p = 0.22297). However, the network structure and connectedness differed significantly from baseline to follow-up (M = 0.16405, p = <0.0001; S = 0.74536, p = 0.02), with several associations between psychosis and depressive items differing significantly by 12 months. Depressive symptoms, in addition to symptoms of thought disturbance (e.g. conceptual disorganisation and stereotyped thinking), may be examples of important, under-recognized treatment targets in early psychosis, which may have the potential to lead to global symptom improvements and better recovery.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.

Supported employment for adults with severe mental illness.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To review the effectiveness of supported employment compared to other approached to vocational rehabilitation and treatment as usual.Secondary objectives are to establish how far: fidelity to the IPS model affects the effectiveness of supported employment,the effectiveness of supported employment can be augmented by the addition of other interventions.

Prevalence of treatment resistance and clozapine use in early intervention services.

BACKGROUND: Treatment resistance causes significant burden in psychosis. Clozapine is the only evidence-based pharmacologic intervention available for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia; current guidelines recommend commencement after two unsuccessful trials of standard antipsychotics. AIMS: This paper aims to explore the prevalence of treatment resistance and pathways to commencement of clozapine in UK early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services. METHOD: Data were taken from the National Evaluation of the Development and Impact of Early Intervention Services study (N = 1027) and included demographics, medication history and psychosis symptoms measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Prescribing patterns and pathways to clozapine were examined. We adopted a strict criterion for treatment resistance, defined as persistent elevated positive symptoms (a PANSS positive score ≥16, equating to at least two items of at least moderate severity), across three time points. RESULTS: A total of 143 (18.1%) participants met the definition of treatment resistance of having continuous positive symptoms over 12 months, despite treatment in EIP services. Sixty-one (7.7%) participants were treatment resistant and eligible for clozapine, having had two trials of standard antipsychotics; however, only 25 (2.4%) were prescribed clozapine over the 12-month study period. Treatment-resistant participants were more likely to be prescribed additional antipsychotic medication and polypharmacy, instead of clozapine. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalent treatment resistance was observed in UK EIP services, but prescription of polypharmacy was much more common than clozapine. Significant delays in the commencement of clozapine may reflect a missed opportunity to promote recovery in this critical period.