Patient perspectives of lithium and quetiapine augmentation treatment in treatment-resistant depression: A qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) has a profound cost to patients and healthcare services worldwide. Pharmacological augmentation is one therapeutic option for TRD, with lithium and quetiapine currently recommended as first-line agents. Patient opinions about pharmacological augmentation may affect treatment outcomes, yet these have not been systematically explored. AIMS: This study aimed to qualitatively assess patient experiences of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients from the ongoing lithium versus quetiapine open-label trial comparing these augmentation agents in patients with TRD. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was used to assess patient opinions of each agent. RESULTS: Four main themes were generated from the thematic analysis: 'Initial concerns', 'Experience of side effects', 'Perception of treatment efficacy' and 'Positive perception of treatment monitoring'. Patient accounts indicated a predominantly positive experience of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Greater apprehension about side effects was reported for lithium prior to treatment initiation, but greater experience of negative side effects was reported for quetiapine. Clinical monitoring was perceived positively. CONCLUSION: Patient accounts suggested treatment augmentation with lithium or quetiapine was acceptable and helpful for most patients. However, anticipation and experiences of adverse side effects may prevent some patients from benefitting from these treatments.

Who wants more social contacts? A cross-sectional study of people with psychotic disorders in England.

Many people with psychosis have few social contacts which can significantly reduce quality of life. While the symptoms of psychosis are thought to contribute to social isolation, they could also lead to the perception that patients are uninterested in increasing their social contacts or in socialisation interventions. Hence, those who most need support to reduce isolation may be less likely to receive it. Despite this, studies have yet to identify the characteristics of patients who do and do not want to increase their social contacts. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 548 participants with psychosis in community mental health teams across England, covering urban and rural areas. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of wanting to vs. not wanting to increase social contacts. Content analysis was used to explore reasons. The majority (68%) of participants reported a desire for more social contacts, which was significantly associated with lower quality of life. While people with lower quality of life were more likely to express a desire for more contacts, they were less likely to feel confident in increasing them. Reasons for not wanting to increase contacts were related either to perceived barriers or to feeling content with current circumstances. It may be concluded that people with psychosis who have a lower quality of life and little confidence in socialising have a greater desire for more social contacts. Hence, contrary to traditional beliefs, they are likely to be motivated to engage with support to reduce isolation if it is offered.

Helping people with psychosis to expand their social networks: the stakeholders' views.

BACKGROUND: People with psychosis experience more social isolation than any other diagnostic group and have smaller social networks than the general population. This isolation can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. No direct, standardised interventions have been developed to specifically target this issue. Stakeholders input appears crucial in the process of developing such an intervention. This study aimed to identify the main considerations when developing an intervention aiming to reduce social isolation in people with psychosis. METHODS: Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients, carers and mental health staff. Data was thematically analysed. RESULTS: Thirty four patients with psychosis, 26 carers of people experiencing psychosis and 22 mental health professionals participated in the study. Suggested aspects to be considered in a novel intervention were: i) finding and training the right staff member; ii) discussing negative social attitudes and patients' previous negative experiences, iii) addressing personal ambivalence; iv) establishing how best to provide information about social activities; v) facilitating access to social activities, vi) striking a balance between support and independence. CONCLUSION: The suggestions identified can help to develop more targeted approaches to reduce social isolation within this patient group. A patient-centred approach and generic communication skills appear to be underpinning most of the helpful elements identified, whilst specific techniques and skills can help to overcome negative past experiences and motivational barriers.

Association of Patient Treatment Preference With Dropout and Clinical Outcomes in Adult Psychosocial Mental Health Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Receiving a preferred treatment has previously been associated with lower dropout rates and better clinical outcomes, but this scenario has not been investigated specifically for psychosocial interventions for patients with a mental health diagnosis. Objective: To assess the association of patient treatment preference with dropout and clinical outcomes in adult psychosocial mental health interventions via a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Nice HDAS (Healthcare Databases Advanced Search), Google Scholar, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), Semantic Scholar, and OpenGrey were searched from inception to July 20, 2018, and updated on June 10, 2019. Study Selection: Studies were eligible if they (1) were a randomized clinical trial; (2) involved participants older than 18 years; (3) involved participants with mental health diagnoses; (4) reported data from a group of participants who received their preferred treatment and a group who received their nonpreferred treatment or who were not given a choice; and (5) offered at least 1 psychosocial intervention. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two researchers extracted study data for attendance, dropout, and clinical outcomes independently. Both assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane tool. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following 7 outcomes were examined: attendance, dropout, therapeutic alliance, depression and anxiety outcomes, global outcomes, treatment satisfaction, and remission. Results: A total of 7341 articles were identified, with 34 eligible for inclusion. Twenty-nine articles were included in the meta-analyses comprising 5294 participants. Receiving a preferred psychosocial mental health treatment had a medium positive association with dropout rates (relative risk, 0.62; 0.48-0.80; P < .001; I2 = 44.6%) and therapeutic alliance (Cohen d = 0.48; 0.15-0.82; P = .01; I2 = 20.4%). There was no evidence of a significant association with other outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This is the first review, to our knowledge, examining the association of receiving a preferred psychosocial mental health treatment with both engagement and outcomes for patients with a mental health diagnosis. Patients with mental health diagnoses who received their preferred treatment demonstrated a lower dropout rate from treatment and higher therapeutic alliance scores. These findings underline the need to accommodate patient preference in mental health services to maximize treatment uptake and reduce financial costs of premature dropout and disengagement.