Scoping review protocol on non-pharmacological interventions for interpersonal and self-directed violence in adults with severe mental illness.

INTRODUCTION: Violence committed by people with mental illness has implications for mental health policy and clinical practice. Several strategies to reduce the risk of aggressive and violent behaviour have been proposed, and these include non-pharmacological interventions. There is, however, a need to identify which of these interventions are effective, and as a first step, we will conduct a scoping review to identify non-pharmacological interventions for self-directed or interpersonal violence in adults with severe mental illness across different conditions and settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a scoping review protocol. The review will include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that assess the efficacy of interventions on self-directed or interpersonal violence with no restrictions on the control treatment in people with severe mental illness in any setting. No restrictions will be applied in terms of language or date of publication. To identify studies, a search will be performed in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Epistemonikos and databases of clinical trials. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be followed for reporting the findings, including the use of a PRISMA flow diagram. A standardised form will be used to extract data from studies. The findings will be classified using conceptual categories that will be specified in detail and a descriptive summary of the main results will be created. Moreover, it will be assessed whether the studies identified have been included in systematic reviews or meta-analyses and the results will be used to generate a conceptual map. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patients or other participants will be involved in this study. We will prepare a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and the results will be presented at mental health conferences.

Patrón de uso de clozapina en España. Variabilidad e infraprescripción / Pattern of use of clozapine in Spain. Variability and under-prescription

Introducción: Los datos internacionales disponibles sobre uso de clozapina recogen en general una baja prescripción, infradosificación y retraso en el inicio del tratamiento, y han originado diversas iniciativas para mejorar su uso y disminuir la llamativa variabilidad. No disponemos de estudios que valoren estos aspectos en población española, por lo que nos hemos planteado una primera y modesta aproximación a través de 4 muestras territoriales. Nuestra hipótesis es que, al igual que las referencias comentadas, en nuestro país el consumo de clozapina podría ser bajo y variable. Nuestro objetivo, en caso de confirmarse la hipótesis, sería iniciar una reflexión sobre posibles estrategias a plantear. Material y métodos: Los autores han accedido a datos de consumo de clozapina en Cataluña, Castilla y León, País Vasco y un Área de Madrid (el Área de Gestión Clínica PSM del Hospital 12 de Octubre). Resultados: Los pacientes con diagnóstico de esquizofrenia en tratamiento en los territorios estudiados oscilan en torno al 0,3%; los tratamientos con clozapina/10.000 habitantes entre el 33% y 57%; y los pacientes diagnosticados como esquizofrenia en tratamiento con clozapina suponen entre el 13,7% y 18,6% de los tratados. El coeficiente de variación entre centros y prescriptores es frecuentemente superior al 50%. Conclusiones: Aunque por debajo de las cifras indicadas por la literatura, los datos globales de prescripción de clozapina en los territorios que hemos estudiado no son tan bajos como los recogidos en otros trabajos internacionales, y se sitúan en el rango de países de nuestro entorno. Sin embargo, la variabilidad en la prescripción es muy importante, aparentemente no justificada; y aumenta a medida que analizamos zonas menores, hasta una gran heterogeneidad de la prescripción individual

Introduction: International studies on clozapine use usually show lower than expected prescription proportions, under-dosing and delayed initiation of treatment, which has led to a number of initiatives aimed at improving its use and reducing the striking variability observed among practitioners. There are no similar studies on the Spanish population. Therefore we planned initial data collection from 4 territorial samples. We hypothesized that clozapine prescription would also be low and variable in our country. If this hypothesis were confirmed, a reflection on possible strategies would be necessary. Material and methods: We accessed data on clozapine prescription in Catalonia, Castile and Leon, the Basque Country and the Clinical Management Area of the Hospital 12 de Octubre (Madrid). Results: Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia under treatment in these territories comprise around .3% of their total population; treatment with clozapine ranges between 33.0 and 57.0 per 10000 inhabitants; patients diagnosed with schizophrenia on current treatment with clozapine range between 13.7% and 18.6% of the total number of patients with this diagnosis. The coefficient of variation between centres and prescribers is often higher than 50%. Conclusions: Although below the figures suggested as desirable in the literature, global prescribing data for clozapine in the areas we studied are not as low as the data collected in other international studies, and are in the range of countries in our environment. However, the variability in prescription is large and apparently not justified; this heterogeneity increases as we focus on smaller areas, and there is great heterogeneity at the level of individual prescription

Reflexiones en torno al modelo de recuperación / Reflections on the recovery model

El objetivo de este artículo es aportar algunas reflexiones críticas sobre el modelo de recuperación en salud mental, su implementación en los servicios asistenciales y su posible impacto en las personas afectadas y en los profesionales. En un momento en el que la recuperación se ha convertido en el centro de la retórica de todos los planes y estrategias de salud mental, no es fácil definir de forma operativa cómo se traslada lo esencial del modelo a la práctica asistencial rutinaria en los servicios públicos de salud mental, ni qué consecuencias se derivarían de adoptar dicho enfoque. Teniendo en cuenta especialmente que el modelo de recuperación parece amparar muy diversas concepciones, desde las más ortodoxas y compatibles con la práctica asistencial habitual a las más críticas con la misma, es necesario definir en qué acciones específicas se traduce la adopción de este modelo en la organización de los servicios, cómo se evalúa su impacto y qué posibles efectos conlleva para los usuarios, los profesionales y la sociedad en general (AU)

This paper tries to offer some critical reflections on the recovery model in mental health, its deployment in care services and its impact on patients and mental health professionals. At a time when recovery has become the center of the rhetoric of all mental health plans and strategies, it is not easy to define in an operative way how the essential elements of the model have to be transferred to routine care practices in mental health public services, nor to assess the consequences that would result from adopting this approach. Taking into account that the recovery model seems to support very different conceptions, from the most orthodox and common care practices to the most critical ones, it is necessary to define what specific actions have to be implemented for the adoption of this model in the organization of services, how to assess their impact, and what potential effects they entail for users, professionals and society (AU)