Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 14(1): e081969, 2024 01 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38286705

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Post-traumatic symptoms are common among patients discharged from intensive care units (ICUs), adversely affecting well-being, increasing healthcare utilisation and delaying return to work. Non-pharmacological approaches (eg, music, therapeutic touch and patient diaries) have been suggested as candidate interventions and trauma-focused psychological interventions have been endorsed by international bodies. Neither category of intervention is supported by definitive evidence of long-term clinical effectiveness in patients who have been critically ill. This study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of using eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) to improve the mental health of ICU survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EMERALD is a multicentre, two-part consent, pilot feasibility study, recruiting discharged ICU survivors from three hospitals in the UK. We are gathering demographics and measuring post-traumatic symptoms, anxiety, depression and quality of life at baseline. Two months after discharge, participants are screened for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Patients with IES-R scores<22 continue in an observation arm for 12 month follow-up. IES-R scores≥22 indicate above-threshold PTSD symptoms and trigger invitation to consent for part B: a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of EMDR versus usual care, with 1:1 randomisation. The study assesses feasibility (recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity) and acceptability (through semistructured interviews), using a theoretical acceptability framework. Clinical outcomes (PTSD, anxiety, depression and quality of life) are collected at baseline, 2 and 12 months, informing power calculations for a definitive RCT, with quantitative and qualitative data convergence guiding RCT refinements. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has undergone external expert peer review and is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (grant number: NIHR302160). Ethical approval has been granted by South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee (IRAS number: 317291). Results will be disseminated through the lay media, social media, peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05591625.


Asunto(s)
Desensibilización y Reprocesamiento del Movimiento Ocular , Salud Mental , Humanos , Alta del Paciente , Desensibilización y Reprocesamiento del Movimiento Ocular/métodos , Estudios de Factibilidad , Cuidados Críticos , Sobrevivientes , Hospitales , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
2.
J Intensive Care Soc ; 24(3): 309-319, 2023 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37744073

RESUMEN

Background: Approximately 50% of intensive care survivors experience persistent psychological symptoms. Eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) is a widely recommended trauma-focussed psychological therapy, which has not been investigated systematically in a cohort of intensive care survivors: We therefore conducted a randomised pilot feasibility study of EMDR, using the Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol (R-TEP), to prevent psychological distress in intensive care survivors. Findings will determine whether it would be possible to conduct a fully-powered clinical effectiveness trial and inform trial design. Method: We aimed to recruit 26 patients who had been admitted to intensive care for over 24 h with COVID-19 infection. Consenting participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either usual care plus remotely delivered EMDR R-TEP or usual care alone (controls). The primary outcome was feasibility. We also report factors related to safety and symptom changes in post-traumatic stress disorder, (PTSD) anxiety and depression. Results: We approached 51 eligible patients, with 26 (51%) providing consent. Intervention adherence (sessions offered/sessions completed) was 83%, and 23/26 participants completed all study procedures. There were no attributable adverse events. Between baseline and 6-month follow-up, mean change in PTSD score was -8 (SD = 10.5) in the intervention group versus +0.75 (SD = 15.2) in controls (p = 0.126). There were no significant changes to anxiety or depression. Conclusion: Remotely delivered EMDR R-TEP met pre-determined feasibility and safety objectives. Whilst we achieved group separation in PTSD symptom change, we have identified a number of protocol refinements that would improve the design of a fully powered, multi-centre randomised controlled trial, consistent with currently recommended rehabilitation clinical pathways. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04455360.

3.
J Intensive Care Soc ; 22(4): 312-318, 2021 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35154369

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reports of significant psychological stress among frontline healthcare workers are emerging from the Covid-19 outbreak in China. Concerningly, these match findings from previous infective outbreaks, which resulted in long-term psychological pathology. METHODS: During the Covid-19 pandemic, a multi-disciplinary cohort of Intensive Care staff completed an online survey of psychological well-being and rated the perceived usefulness of supportive interventions. RESULTS: Sixty per cent of invited staff responded. Seventy-seven per cent reported normal/high level of resilience. Thirty-two staff (35%) reported anxiety of a level at which formal psychological assessment is recommended. Sixteen (14%) staff members reported symptomology suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Multiple regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between job-related well-being, anxiety (p = 0.003) and PTSD (p = 0.005). Nurses were seven times more likely than doctors to score higher anxiety (OR = 6.8; p = 0.01). Preferred supportive interventions were adequate personal protective equipment, rest facilities and regular breaks. In the subgroup with high anxiety, psychological support was perceived as significantly more useful, with significant reductions reported for rest facilities and PPE. DISCUSSION: We report concerning levels of anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptomology among intensive care staff during the Covid-19 crisis, significantly impacting job-related well-being. Nurses are disproportionately affected. Overall, physiologically protective supportive interventions were preferred by staff; however, staff with established anxiety desire professional psychological help. Our findings match reports from SARS 2003 and China 2019. To mitigate long-term psychological consequences of caring for patients during a pandemic, easily deliverable protective strategies should be instigated, supported by formal and longer-term psychological support. Particular attention should be paid to developing strategies which support nursing staff.

4.
Trials ; 21(1): 929, 2020 Nov 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33203440

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective: To determine the feasibility of delivering a protocolised, remote, online, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) intervention, within 12-weeks of hospital discharge, for adult survivors of Covid-19 related critical illness. Secondary objectives: To investigate whether remotely delivered EMDR can improve psychological outcome following Covid-19 related critical illness, specifically Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single centre, randomised controlled cohort feasibility trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants will be recruited following discharge from the Intensive Care Unit at University Hospital Southampton, United Kingdom. Eligible patients will have received mechanical ventilation for a minimum of 24 hours, tested Covid-19 positive by polymerase chain reaction, will be over the age of 18 years and have the capacity to provide informed consent. Patients will be excluded if they have pre-existing cognitive impairment, pre-existing psychotic diagnosis or are not expected to survive post-hospital discharge. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Group one: patients in the control arm will receive their standard package of prescribed care, following discharge home from hospital. If they experience any adverse physical or psychological health-conditions, they will access care through the usual available channels. Group two: patients randomly allocated to the intervention arm will receive their standard package of prescribed care, following discharge home from hospital. In addition, they will be referred to the Intensive Psychological Therapies Service in Poole, United Kingdom. They will receive an online appointment within 12-weeks of discharge home from hospital. They will receive a maximum of eight, weekly sessions of EMDR, delivered by a trained psychological therapist, following the Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol (R-TEP). Appendices 1 and 2 of the attached trial protocol contain a detailed description of the R-TEP intervention, written in accordance with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome from this trial will be feasibility. Feasibility will be determined by recruitment rates, expressed as a percentage of eligible patients approached, completion of the EMDR intervention, completion of final assessment at 6-months, incidence of attributable adverse events and protocol adherence by the psychological therapists. Secondary, exploratory outcomes will be assessed by comparison between the control and intervention groups at 6-months post-hospital discharge. Psychometric evaluation will consist of the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. In addition, we will assess health-related quality of life using the EQ5D-5L, physical activity using wrist worn activity monitors and nutritional state using the Council of Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire. RANDOMISATION: Consenting participants will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care using an internet-based system (ALEATM). Participants will be randomly assigned, on a 1:1 ratio, to receive either standard care (control) or the standard care plus online EMDR R-TEP (Intervention) BLINDING (MASKING): Due to the nature of the intervention, participants cannot be blinded to group allocation. 6-month patient reported outcome measures will be completed using an online, electronic case report form. Group allocation will be masked during data analysis. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): This is a feasibility study, the results of which will be used to power a definitive study if appropriate. We anticipate a 25% mortality /loss to follow-up. A total of 26 patients will be recruited to this study, 13 patients in each arm. TRIAL STATUS: CovEMERALD opened to recruitment on 23rd September 2020 with an anticipated recruitment period of 6-months. We are using protocol version number 1.2 (1st June 2020) TRIAL REGISTRATION: CovEMERALD was registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04455360 on 2nd July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Depresión , Desensibilización y Reprocesamiento del Movimiento Ocular/métodos , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Calidad de Vida , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Adulto , Ansiedad/etiología , Ansiedad/prevención & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/psicología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Enfermedad Crítica/psicología , Enfermedad Crítica/rehabilitación , Depresión/etiología , Depresión/prevención & control , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Servicios de Atención a Domicilio Provisto por Hospital , Humanos , Intervención basada en la Internet , Masculino , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/psicología , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Técnicas Psicológicas , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/etiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/prevención & control
5.
Br J Psychiatry ; 216(4): 204-212, 2020 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31317843

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Individuals with depression often do not respond to medication or psychotherapy. Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RO DBT) is a new treatment targeting overcontrolled personality, common in refractory depression. AIMS: To compare RO DBT plus treatment as usual (TAU) for refractory depression with TAU alone (trial registration: ISRCTN 85784627). METHOD: RO DBT comprised 29 therapy sessions and 27 skills classes over 6 months. Our completed randomised trial evaluated RO DBT for refractory depression over 18 months in three British secondary care centres. Of 250 adult participants, we randomised 162 (65%) to RO DBT. The primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), assessed masked and analysed by treatment allocated. RESULTS: After 7 months, immediately following therapy, RO DBT had significantly reduced depressive symptoms by 5.40 points on the HRSD relative to TAU (95% CI 0.94-9.85). After 12 months (primary end-point), the difference of 2.15 points on the HRSD in favour of RO DBT was not significant (95% CI -2.28 to 6.59); nor was that of 1.69 points on the HRSD at 18 months (95% CI -2.84 to 6.22). Throughout RO DBT participants reported significantly better psychological flexibility and emotional coping than controls. However, they reported eight possible serious adverse reactions compared with none in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The RO DBT group reported significantly lower HRSD scores than the control group after 7 months, but not thereafter. The imbalance in serious adverse reactions was probably because of the controls' limited opportunities to report these.


Asunto(s)
Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/terapia , Trastorno Depresivo Resistente al Tratamiento/terapia , Terapia Conductual Dialéctica , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Procesos Psicoterapéuticos , Adulto , Terapia Conductual Dialéctica/métodos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Escalas de Valoración Psiquiátrica , Atención Secundaria de Salud
6.
BJPsych Open ; 5(5): e64, 2019 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31352916

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Refractory depression is a major contributor to the economic burden of depression. Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RO DBT) is an unevaluated new treatment targeting overcontrolled personality, common in refractory depression, but it is not yet known whether the additional expense of RO DBT is good value for money.AimsTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of RO DBT plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU alone in people with refractory depression (trial registration: ISRCTN85784627). METHOD: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised trial evaluating RO DBT plus TAU versus TAU alone for refractory depression in three UK secondary care centres. Our economic evaluation, 12 months after randomisation, adopted the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. It evaluated cost-effectiveness by comparing the net cost of RO DBT with the net gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-3L measure of health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The additional cost of RO DBT plus TAU compared with TAU alone was £7048 and was associated with a difference of 0.032 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £220 250 per QALY. This ICER was well above the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) upper threshold of £30 000 per QALY. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that RO DBT had a zero probability of being cost-effective compared with TAU at the NICE £30 000 threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In its current resource-intensive form, RO DBT is not a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS.Declaration of interestR.H. is co-owner and director of Radically Open Ltd, the RO DBT training and dissemination company. D.K. reports grants outside the submitted work from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). T.L. receives royalties from New Harbinger Publishing for sales of RO DBT treatment manuals, speaking fees from Radically Open Ltd, and a grant outside the submitted work from the Medical Research Council. He was co-director of Radically Open Ltd between November 2014 and May 2015 and is married to Erica Smith-Lynch, the principal shareholder and one of two directors of Radically Open Ltd. H.O'M. reports personal fees outside the submitted work from the Charlie Waller Institute and Improving Access to Psychological Therapy. S.R. provides RO DBT supervision through her company S C Rushbrook Ltd. I.R. reports grants outside the submitted work from NIHR and Health & Care Research Wales. M. Stanton reports personal fees outside the submitted work from British Isles DBT Training, Stanton Psychological Services Ltd and Taylor & Francis. M. Swales reports personal fees outside the submitted work from British Isles DBT Training, Guilford Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis. B.W. was co-director of Radically Open Ltd between November 2014 and February 2015.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA