ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release. METHOD: The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3-5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT). RESULTS: In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact. CONCLUSIONS: Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.
Subject(s)
Mental Health , Prisoners , Male , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Anxiety , EnglandABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 'Engager' is an innovative 'through-the-gate' complex care intervention for male prison-leavers with common mental health problems. In parallel to the randomised-controlled trial of Engager (Trial registration number: ISRCTN11707331), a set of process evaluation analyses were undertaken. This paper reports on the depth multiple case study analysis part of the process evaluation, exploring how a sub-sample of prison-leavers engaged and responded to the intervention offer of one-to-one support during their re-integration into the community. METHODS: To understand intervention delivery and what response it elicited in individuals, we used a realist-informed qualitative multiple 'case' studies approach. We scrutinised how intervention component delivery lead to outcomes by examining underlying causal pathways or 'mechanisms' that promoted or hindered progress towards personal outcomes. 'Cases' (n = 24) were prison-leavers from the intervention arm of the trial. We collected practitioner activity logs and conducted semi-structured interviews with prison-leavers and Engager/other service practitioners. We mapped data for each case against the intervention logic model and then used Bhaskar's (2016) 'DREIC' analytic process to categorise cases according to extent of intervention delivery, outcomes evidenced, and contributing factors behind engagement or disengagement and progress achieved. RESULTS: There were variations in the dose and session focus of the intervention delivery, and how different participants responded. Participants sustaining long-term engagement and sustained change reached a state of 'crises but coping'. We found evidence that several components of the intervention were key to achieving this: trusting relationships, therapeutic work delivered well and over time; and an in-depth shared understanding of needs, concerns, and goals between the practitioner and participants. Those who disengaged were in one of the following states: 'Crises and chaos', 'Resigned acceptance', 'Honeymoon' or 'Wilful withdrawal'. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the 'implementability' of an intervention can be explained by examining the delivery of core intervention components in relation to the responses elicited in the participants. Core delivery mechanisms often had to be 'triggered' numerous times to produce sustained change. The improvements achieved, sustained, and valued by participants were not always reflected in the quantitative measures recorded in the RCT. The compatibility between the practitioner, participant and setting were continually at risk of being undermined by implementation failure as well as changing external circumstances and participants' own weaknesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11707331, Wales Research Ethics Committee, Registered 02-04-2016-Retrospectively registered https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11707331.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Emotions , Humans , Male , Qualitative Research , WalesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: People in prison experience a range of physical and mental health problems. Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of prison-based interventions presents a number of methodological challenges. We present a case study of an economic evaluation of a prison-based intervention ("Engager") to address common mental health problems. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty people were recruited from prisons in England and randomised to Engager plus usual care or usual care. Participants were followed up for 12 months following release from prison. The primary analysis is the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of Engager compared to usual care from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective with QALYs calculated using the CORE 6 Dimension. A cost-consequences analysis evaluated cross-sectoral costs and a range of outcomes. RESULTS: From an NHS perspective, Engager cost an additional £2737 per participant (95% of iterations between £1029 and £4718) with a mean QALY difference of - 0.014 (95% of iterations between - 0.045 and 0.017). For the cost-consequences, there was evidence of improved access to substance misuse services 12 months post-release (odds ratio 2.244, 95% confidence Interval 1.304-3.861). CONCLUSION: Engager provides a rare example of a cost-utility analysis conducted in prisons and the community using patient-completed measures. Although the results from this trial show no evidence that Engager is cost-effective, the results of the cost-consequences analysis suggest that follow-up beyond 12 months post-release using routine data may provide additional insights into the effectiveness of the intervention and the importance of including a wide range of costs and outcomes in prison-based economic evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ISRCTN11707331).
Subject(s)
Prisoners , State Medicine , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Mental Health , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The 'Engager' programme is a 'through-the-gate' intervention designed to support prisoners with common mental health problems as they transition from prison back into the community. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Engager intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to either: (a) the Engager intervention plus standard care (intervention group) or (b) standard care alone (control group) across two investigation centres (South West and North West of England). Two hundred and eighty prisoners meeting eligibility criteria will take part. Engager is a person-centred complex intervention delivered by practitioners and aimed at addressing offenders' mental health and social care needs. It comprises one-to-one support for participants prior to release from prison and for up to 20 weeks postrelease. The primary outcome is change in psychological distress measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure at 6 months postrelease. Secondary outcomes include: assessment of subjective met/unmet need, drug and alcohol use, health-related quality of life and well-being-related quality of life measured at 3, 6 and 12 months postrelease; change in objective social domains, drug and alcohol dependence, service utilisation and perceived helpfulness of services and change in psychological constructs related to desistence at 6 and 12 months postrelease; and recidivism at 12 months postrelease. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 (ref: 15/WA/0314) and the National Offender Management Service (ref: 2015-283). Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, clinicians and service users via papers and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11707331; Pre-results.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/therapy , Prisoners , Psychotherapy/methods , Adult , Cost-Benefit Analysis , England , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/economics , Mental Disorders/rehabilitation , Psychotherapy/economics , Quality of Life , Stress, Psychological/prevention & controlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rates of common mental health problems are much higher in prison populations, but access to primary care mental health support falls short of community equivalence. Discontinuity of care on release is the norm and is further complicated by substance use and a range of social problems, e.g. homelessness. To address these problems, we worked with criminal justice, third sector social inclusion services, health services and people with lived experiences (peer researchers), to develop a complex collaborative care intervention aimed at supporting men with common mental health problems near to and following release from prison. This paper describes an external pilot trial to test the feasibility of a full randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible individuals with 4 to 16 weeks left to serve were screened to assess for common mental health problems. Participants were then randomised at a ratio of 2:1 allocation to ENGAGER plus standard care (intervention) or standard care alone (treatment as usual). Participants were followed up at 1 and 3 months' post release. Success criteria for this pilot trial were to meet the recruitment target sample size of 60 participants, to follow up at least 50% of participants at 3 months' post release from prison, and to deliver the ENGAGER intervention. Estimates of recruitment and retention rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Descriptive analyses included summaries (percentages or means) for participant demographics, and baseline characteristics are reported. RESULTS: Recruitment target was met with 60 participants randomised in 9 months. The average retention rates were 73% at 1 month [95% CI 61 to 83] and 47% at 3 months follow-up [95% CI 35 to 59]. Ninety percent of participants allocated to the intervention successfully engaged with a practitioner before release and 70% engaged following release. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot confirms the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial for prison leavers with common mental health problems. Based on this pilot study and some minor changes to the trial design and intervention, a full two-centre randomised trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ENGAGER intervention is currently underway.
ABSTRACT
Psychopathy is a disorder that is partly defined by with maladaptive interpersonal behaviour and has significant effects on treatment outcomes. A previous study (Draycott et al., ) found that higher levels of psychopathy led to a specific interpersonal 'trajectory' amongst patients in a secure psychiatric treatment programme during the first 9 months of their admission. In that programme, more psychopathic patients became increasingly dominant over time, and less psychopathic patients became increasingly hostile. This study is a longer-term follow-up and extension of that study, extending the window of observation to 33 months of treatment. It was found that the more psychopathic patients' increased dominance returned to baseline levels by 33 months, as did the less psychopathic patients' increased hostility. This suggests that treatment for this group is not idiopathic but leaves unanswered the question as to what these divergent trajectories represent.
Subject(s)
Antisocial Personality Disorder/psychology , Inpatients/psychology , Interpersonal Relations , Social Behavior , Adult , Aged , Analysis of Variance , Antisocial Personality Disorder/therapy , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
Previous studies have identified neuropsychological deficits in individuals with antisocial personality disorder and/or psychopathy. Few studies have examined neuropsychological functioning in individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), and no studies have yet investigated cognitive and emotional function in male prisoners with BPD. In this study, we compared the risky decision-making of 17 participants with a history of serious violent or sexual offenses and a diagnosis of DSM-IV BPD with that of 17 participants with similar offending histories but personality disorders other than BPD. Those with BPD exhibited altered processing of information about potential losses (punishment) when the probability of gains (reward) was high; they also increased their choice of risky options even in circumstances where this was clearly avoidable. These data suggest that individuals with a diagnosis of BPD and a history of serious offenses have problems integrating different reinforcement signals when choosing between risky actions, perhaps reflecting corticolimbic dysfunction as an underlying mechanism in BPD.
Subject(s)
Borderline Personality Disorder/psychology , Choice Behavior , Cognition Disorders/psychology , Prisoners/psychology , Adult , Antisocial Personality Disorder/psychology , Anxiety , Borderline Personality Disorder/complications , Cognition Disorders/etiology , Forensic Psychiatry/methods , Humans , Male , Personality Inventory , Punishment , RewardABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of borderline personality disorder report neuropsychological impairments in several domains, including memory. No studies have compared memory functioning in high-risk prisoners with borderline personality disorder with similar prisoners with other personality disorders. AIMS: To explore mnemonic impairments in prisoners undergoing personality assessment as part of the dangerous and severe personality disorder initiative or detained in a medium secure facility. METHOD: We investigated memory function in 18 prisoners with borderline personality disorder and 18 prisoners with other personality disorders. RESULTS: Prisoners with borderline personality disorder exhibited a pattern of multi-modal impairments in the immediate and delayed recall of verbal and visual information, with some association with affective instability. These deficits were not associated with the severity of personality disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that memory deficits have some specificity in relation to the constituent traits of borderline personality disorder and indicate that neuropsychological assessment may be a source of useful adjunctive information for distinguishing between the cognitive and psychological difficulties of individual prisoners.