Feasibility of a psychoeducational family intervention for people with bipolar I disorder and their relatives: Results from an Italian real-world multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Despite several guidelines recommend the use of psychoeducational family interventions (PFIs) as add-on in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder, their implementation on a large scale remains limited. The aim of the present study is to identify obstacles for the feasibility of PFIs in routine care. METHODS: This was a multicentre, real-world, controlled, outpatient trial, carried out in 11 randomly recruited Italian mental health centres. Two mental health professionals from each center attended a modular training course on PFI and provided the intervention. Difficulties and benefits experienced by mental health professionals in implementing the intervention were assessed through the Family Intervention Schedule (FIS-R), which was administered six times. RESULTS: Sixteen out of the 22 recruited professionals completed the training and administered the PFI to 70 patients with bipolar I disorder and their relatives. The retention rate of families receiving the intervention was 93%. Mental health professionals reported high levels of organizational difficulties, several benefits in their daily clinical work and low levels of intervention-related difficulties. The most important organizational obstacles were related to the need to integrate the intervention with other work responsibilities and to the lack of time to carry out the intervention. These difficulties did not decrease over time. Intervention-related difficulties were rated as less problematic since the first time assessment and tended to improve over time. LIMITATIONS: Low number of recruited professionals; use of a not previously validated assessment instrument. CONCLUSIONS: PFIs are feasible in routine care for the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder and their relatives, and main obstacles are related to the organization/structure of mental health centres, and not to the characteristics of the intervention itself.

Comparison of psychotic bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia: an international, multisite study.

OBJECTIVE: Nosological distinctions among schizoaffective disorder (SA), bipolar I disorder with psychotic features (BDp), and schizophrenia (SZ) remain unresolved. METHOD: We compared 2269 subjects with psychotic features in DSM-IV-TR diagnoses (1435 BDp, 463 SZ, 371 SA) from 8 collaborating international sites, by 12 sociodemographic and clinical measures, all between diagnostic pairs. RESULTS: In bivariate comparisons, SA was consistently intermediate between BDp and SZ for 11/12 features (except onset stressors), and SZ vs. BDp differed in all 12 factors. SA differed from both BDp and SZ in 9/12 factors: SA and BDp were similar in education and suicidal ideation or acts; SA and SZ were similar in education, onset stressors, and substance abuse. Meta-analytic comparisons of diagnostic pairs for 10 categorical factors indicated similar differences of SA from both SZ and BDp. Multivariate modeling indicated significantly independent differences between BDp and SZ (8 factors), SA vs. SZ (5), and BDp vs. SA (3). Measurement variance was similar for all diagnoses. CONCLUSION: SA was consistently intermediate between BDp and SZ. The three diagnostic groups ranked: BDp > SA > SZ related to lesser morbidity or disability. The findings are not consistent with a dyadic Kraepelinian categorization, although the considerable overlap among the three DSM-IV diagnostic groups indicates uncertain boundaries if they represent distinct disorders.