The impact of a digital guideline version on schizophrenia guideline knowledge: results from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. METHODS: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi2(1) = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi2(1) = 0.34, p = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895.

[Self-help offers for people with severe mental illness: who uses which format?] / Selbsthilfeangebote für Menschen mit schwerer psychischer Erkrankung ­ wer nutzt welches Format?

BACKGROUND: Self-help can play an important supplementary role in the treatment of people with severe mental illness; however, little is known about the utilization of the various approaches. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the use of various self-help options by patients with severe mental illness and examines potential predictors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of the observational cross-sectional study on patients with severe mental illness (IMPPETUS, N = 397), trained staff collected sociodemographic, illness-associated and treatment-associated data between March 2019 and September 2019. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze a possible association with the use of self-help. RESULTS: The participants most frequently reported using self-help literature (n = 170; 45.5%) followed by self-help groups (n = 130; 33.2%), electronic mental health applications (n = 56; 15.5%) and self-management approaches (n = 54; 14.8%). Trialogue seminars (n = 36; 9.9%) were the least used by the participants. The utilization of the various approaches is influenced by sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics (age, education, marital status, migration background, age at onset of initial mental health problems, psychosocial functioning level) but not by factors associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: The potential of self-help is not being fully utilized in the sample investigated. The reported use of self-help approaches by the participants ranged between 10% and 46%. The various formats address specific target groups. More targeted information must be provided about the various options and the use of self-help in routine treatment must be actively fostered in order to increase the utilization of self-help.

Informing the development of a decision aid: Expectations and wishes from service users and psychiatrists towards a decision aid for antipsychotics in the inpatient setting.

OBJECTIVES: Decision aids (DAs) are promising tools to foster evidence-based shared decision-making between practitioners and service users. Nevertheless, it is still obscure how an evidence-based DA for people with severe mental illness, especially psychosis, should look in an inpatient treatment setting to be useful and feasible. Therefore, we conducted focus groups with psychiatrists and service users to collect and assess their expectations and wishes regarding an evidence-based DA. From these findings, we derived immediate recommendations for the future development of DAs. METHODS: We held two group interviews with service users (n = 8) and three group interviews with psychiatrists (n = 10). We used an open, large-scale topic guide. First, we presented data from a current meta-analysis on antipsychotics to the interviewees and, in a second step, asked for their expectations and wishes towards a DA that integrates these data. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis revealed six key themes addressed by the respondents: (1) general considerations on the importance and usefulness of such a DA, (2) critical comments on psychiatry and psychopharmacotherapy, (3) communicative prerequisites for the use of a DA, (4) form and content of the DA, (5) data input, data processing and output as well as (6) application of the DA and possible obstacles. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified several important features for the development of DAs for selecting antipsychotics in inpatient psychiatric treatment. The digital format was met with the greatest approval. Especially the adaptability to different needs, users and psychopathologies and the possibility to outsource information dissemination via app seemed to be a decisive convincing argument. Further research is required to test specific features of DAs to be developed in clinical settings.

[Patient Preferences for Exercise Therapy in People with Severe Mental Illness in Germany]. / Der subjektive Stellenwert von Bewegungs- und Sporttherapie bei Menschen mit schwerer psychischer Erkrankung in Deutschland.

PURPOSE: Assessing the experience with and the attitudes towards exercise therapy in persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Furthermore, potential variables of high preference towards exercise therapy are investigated. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of SMI patients aged between 18 and 65 years (n=385). Patients were interviewed by trained staff using standardised instruments. Potential variables were analysed using a hierarchic binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: 84,4% of SMI patients had a high preference for exercise therapy; of these, 44,1% exercised regularly. Among patients with severe mental illness especially a higher value in the GAF-assessment (p=0,041) and living in a metropolitan area (p=0,011) predict a high preference for exercise therapy. CONCLUSION: Most of the patients with severe mental illness interviewed in this study place a surprisingly high value on sports and exercise therapy. Due to the increasing evidence with regard to positive effects of these therapies, it may be an excellent starting point to expand sports and exercise therapy as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. At the same time, strategies for everyday transfer need to be implemented more rigorously.

Evidence-based Shared-Decision-Making Assistant (SDM-assistant) for choosing antipsychotics: protocol of a cluster-randomized trial in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Choosing an antipsychotic medication is an important medical decision in the treatment of schizophrenia. This decision requires risk-benefit assessments of antipsychotics, and thus, shared-decision making between physician and patients is strongly encouraged. Although the efficacy and side-effect profiles of antipsychotics are well-established, there is no clear framework for the communication of the evidence between physicians and patients. For this reason, we developed an evidence-based shared-decision making assistant (SDM-assistant) that presents high-quality evidence from network meta-analysis on the efficacy and side-effect profile of antipsychotics and can be used as a basis for shared-decision making between physicians and patients when selecting antipsychotic medications. METHODS: The planned matched-pair cluster-randomised trial will be conducted in acute psychiatric wards (n = 14 wards planned) and will include adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders (N = 252 participants planned). On the intervention wards, patients and their treating physicians will use the SDM-assistant, whenever a decision on choosing an antipsychotic is warranted. On the control wards, antipsychotics will be chosen according to treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived involvement in the decision-making during the inpatient stay as measured with the SDM-Q-9. We will also assess therapeutic alliance, symptom severity, side-effects, treatment satisfaction, adherence, quality of life, functioning and rehospitalizations as secondary outcomes. Outcomes could be analysed at discharge and at follow-up after three months from discharge. The analysis will be conducted per-protocol using mixed-effects linear regression models for continuous outcomes and logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations for dichotomous outcomes. Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the intervention will also be examined using a qualitative content analysis. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to examine a decision assistant specifically designed to facilitate shared-decision making for choosing antipsychotic medications, i.e., SDM-assistant, in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. If the intervention can be successfully implemented, SDM-assistant could advance evidence-based medicine in schizophrenia by putting medical evidence on antipsychotics into the context of patient preferences and values. This could subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the patients in decision-making and better therapy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027316 , registration date 26.01.2022).

The role of migration in mental healthcare: treatment satisfaction and utilization.

Migration rates increase globally and require an adaption of national mental health services to the needs of persons with migration background. Therefore, we aimed to identify differences between persons with and without migratory background regarding (1) treatment satisfaction, (2) needed and received mental healthcare and (3) utilization of mental healthcare.In the context of a cross-sectional multicenter study, inpatients and day hospital patients of psychiatric settings in Southern Germany with severe affective and non-affective psychoses were included. Patients' satisfaction with and their use of mental healthcare services were assessed by VSSS-54 and CSSRI-EU; patients' needs were measured via CAN-EU.In total, 387 participants (migratory background: n = 72; 19%) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Migrant patients were more satisfied with the overall treatment in the past year compared to non-migrant patients. No differences between both groups were identified in met and unmet treatment needs and use of supply services (psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, and psychosocial treatment).Despite a comparable degree of met and unmet treatment needs and mental health service use among migrants and non-migrants, patients with migration background showed higher overall treatment satisfaction compared to non-migrants. The role of sociocultural and migrant-related factors may explain our findings.

Reducing antipsychotic drugs in stable patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a randomized controlled pilot trial.

As the course of schizophrenic disorders is often chronic, treatment guidelines recommend continuous maintenance treatment to prevent relapses, but antipsychotic drugs can cause many side effects. It, therefore, seems reasonable to try to reduce doses in stable phases of the illness or even try to stop medication. We conducted a 26 weeks, randomized, rater blind, feasibility study to examine individualized antipsychotic dose reduction versus continuous maintenance treatment (Register Number: NCT02307396). We included chronic, adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who were treated with any antipsychotic drug except clozapine, who had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years and who were in symptomatic remission at baseline. The primary outcome was relapse of positive symptoms. Symptom severity, social functioning and side effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. 20 patients were randomized. Relapse rates in the two groups were not significantly different. No patient had to be hospitalized. One patient in the control group dropped out. The mean reduction of antipsychotic dose in the individualized dose-reduction group was 42%, however only one patient discontinued drug completely. There were no significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes. This randomized trial provides evidence, that reduction of antipsychotic medication in chronic stable schizophrenic patients may be feasible. The results need to be confirmed in a larger trial with a longer follow-up period.

Barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia-Qualitative findings from the intervention group of a randomised-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is appreciated as a promising model of communication between clinicians and patients. However, in acute mental health settings, its implementation is still unsatisfactory. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine barriers and facilitators of SDM with acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study was performed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The analysis is based on interviews with participants (patients and staff members) of the intervention group of the randomised-controlled SDMPLUS trial that demonstrated a significant improvement of SDM measures for patients with schizophrenia on acute psychiatric wards. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Interviews addressed treatment decisions made during the current inpatient stay. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 40 interviews were analysed and 131 treatment decisions were identified. According to the interviewees, SDM had taken place in 29% of the decisions, whereas 59% of the decisions were made without SDM. In 16%, a clear judgement could not be made. Barriers and facilitators of SDM were categorised into patient factors, clinician factors, setting factors and others. Clinicians mostly reported patient factors (e.g., symptoms) as barriers towards SDM, which were not mirrored on the patients' side. Facilitators included patient as well as clinician behaviour during consultations. CONCLUSION: Even in the context of a successful SDM intervention, the implementation of SDM for patients in the very acute stages of schizophrenia is often not possible. However, strong facilitators for SDM have also been identified, which should be used for further implementation of SDM. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: During the development of the study protocol, meetings with user representatives were held.

'Triadic' shared decision making in mental health: Experiences and expectations of service users, caregivers and clinicians in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health may contribute to greater patient satisfaction and is sometimes associated with better health outcomes. Here, SDM should not only involve service users and clinicians but also involve the service users' caregivers. AIM: This study aimed to achieve better insight into the current SDM patterns of triads of service users, caregivers and clinicians in inpatient mental health care and the three parties' expectations towards the prospects of triadic SDM. DESIGN: The current research uses data from a representative cross-sectional study on caregivers in psychiatric inpatient treatment. We analysed data on n = 94 triads of service users, their caregivers and their clinicians. RESULTS: All three parties acknowledge caregivers to be of great support to monitor the progress with mental disease. The caregiver's role during consultations is most often described as being an expert, receiving or providing information and supporting service users. However, caregivers at times try to seek support for themselves during caregiver-clinician interaction, or their behaviour was described as unhelpful. The potential prospects of caregiver involvement are clearly acknowledged despite the low implementation of caregiver involvement in this sample (only in one-third of the cases). CONCLUSION: Triadic SDM rarely takes place in routine inpatient care. First, there should be a focus on interventions aiming at inviting caregivers to consultations. Only in the second step should a better conceptualisation of triadic SDM be undertaken. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Early results were discussed with a local peer support group for caregivers of individuals living with mental illness.

Employment status and desire for work in severe mental illness: results from an observational, cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: People with a severe mental illness (SMI) are at particular risk of occupational exclusion. Among the approaches to occupational rehabilitation, supported employment (SE) has been proven to be the most effective. A requirement to enter SE-programs is that individuals must want to seek competitive employment. The aim of this work is to investigate the relationship between serious mental illness and the desire to work including potential predictors. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional observational study of patients with SMI aged 18-65 years (n = 397). Patients were interviewed by trained staff using standardised instruments. The relationship between potential predictors and a strong preference for employment were analysed using a hierarchic binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: Only about one-quarter (27.9%) of SMI patients is in competitive employment. Another quarter is unemployed (25.9%). Results show that the desire for competitive employment is strong among more than half of the SMI patients. Among the unemployed, two-thirds express a strong desire for work. These individuals are an ideal target group for SE interventions. Comorbid chronic physical illness, diagnosis, and the subjectively judged ability to work are associated with the desire for work. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm a substantial exclusion of individuals with SMI from the workforce. In general, care needs for workplace interventions are not being met and leave much room for improvement. In addition to employment status, the desire for work should be routinely assessed. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015801 ) and under the WHO-Platform "International Clinical Trials Registry Platform" (ICTRP) ( https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00015801 ) under the registration number DRKS00015801 before the start of recruitment (Registration date: 21.02.2019).

[Peer Support: Utilization and Benefit in Severe Mental Illness - Results from an Observational, Cross-Sectional Study]. / Genesungsbegleitung: Inanspruchnahme und Nutzenbewertung aus Betroffenenperspektive ­ Ergebnisse einer Beobachtungsstudie.

OBJECTIVE: Peer support is playing an increasing role in the treatment of severely mentally ill people. International findings are available on its effectiveness. However, little is known about knowledge, use and benefit assessment in Germany. This paper addresses this question and presents results from an observational study with 10 participating clinics in southern Germany. METHODS: As part of the observational cross-sectional study with people with severe mental illness (IMPPETUS, N=359), sociodemographic and illness- and treatment-associated data were collected by trained study staff between March 2019 and September 2019. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse a possible association with peer support use. RESULTS: 38% (N=138) of respondents reported knowledge about the possibility of peer support; 15% (N=55) affirmed its use. Use of peer support varied across sites (between 6.5 and 37.5%) and was associated with household income. Significantly less frequent use of peer support was among those with high versus low household income (OR=0.20 [95% CI: 0.06-0.68], p=0.01). Of respondents with peer support use (N=55), 78% reported perceiving peer support to be helpful or highly helpful. DISCUSSION: Peer support not only proves to be effective under study conditions with regard to various outcomes, but is also assessed as beneficial under routine conditions in a defined care region by the majority of users. However, only a few respondents knew and used the possibility of peer support. CONCLUSION: In order to implement peer support more strongly, information about this kind of service should be provided more effectively and a dialogue about successful implementation experiences should be initiated on a regional level.

[Spiritual competence in psychiatry and psychotherapy-Barriers and success factors]. / Spirituelle Kompetenz in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie ­ Hindernisse und Erfolgsfaktoren.

BACKGROUND: Just as the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) and other national psychiatric societies, the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) has published a position statement about religiosity and spirituality in psychiatry and psychotherapy, in which it demands patient orientation and spiritual competency in psychiatric professions. Previous research has shown that lack of competency is the major barrier against implementing spiritual care into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine spiritual care in psychiatry and psychotherapy. An evaluation of how health professionals in psychiatry gauge the spiritual care competency of their professional group and which variables influence this judgement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 391 psychiatric nursing personnel, 75 psychiatrists, 119 therapists from diverse professions and 62 others, i.e. 647 working in German and Austrian hospitals completed the German version of the spiritual care competency questionnaire (SCCQ). RESULTS: Nursing personnel, older and spiritually more experienced persons gauged the spiritual competency of their own professional group comparatively higher and judged less frequently that they have no responsibility in this field. Nursing personnel reported the lack of suitable rooms as a barrier against implementation of spiritual care more often than other professional groups. Judging the spiritual competency of one's own professional group higher is associated with higher values in the SCCQ factors self-experience and proactive opening up, team spirit, perception and documentation competency. CONCLUSION: The responsibility of healthcare professions for spiritual care in psychiatry and psychotherapy is still a controversial issue among German-speaking psychiatric professional groups. This is partially due to a lack of competency in this domain.

A randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess the benefits of amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill schizophrenia patients (COMBINE): methods and design.

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400-800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) and amisulpride-olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Attitudes of European physicians towards the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Prescription rates for long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations remain relatively low in Europe despite improved adherence over alternative oral antipsychotic treatments. This apparent under-prescription of LAI antipsychotics may have multiple contributing factors, including negative mental health practitioner attitudes towards the use of LAIs. METHODS: The Antipsychotic Long acTing injection in schizOphrenia (ALTO) non-interventional study (NIS), conducted across several European countries, utilised a questionnaire that was specifically designed to address physicians' attitudes and beliefs towards the treatment of schizophrenia with LAI antipsychotics. Exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) of feedback from the questionnaire aimed to identify and characterize the factors that best explained the physicians' attitudes towards prescription of LAIs. RESULTS: Overall, 136/234 solicited physicians returned fully completed questionnaires. Physicians' mean age was 48.5 years, with mean psychiatric experience of 20.0 years; 69.9% were male, 84.6% held a consultant position, and 91.9% had a clinical specialty in general adult care. Most physicians considered themselves to have a high level of clinical experience with LAI antipsychotics (77.2%), with an increased rate of LAI antipsychotics prescription over the last 5 years (59.6%). Although the majority of physicians (69.9%) declared feeling no difference in stress levels when offering LAI compared to oral antipsychotics, feelings of 'no/more stress' versus 'less stress' was found to influence prescription patterns. PCA identified six factors which collectively explained 66.1% of the variance in physician feedback. Multivariate analysis identified a positive correlation between physicians willing to accept usage of LAI antipsychotics and the positive attitude of colleagues (co-efficient 3.67; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The physician questionnaire in the ALTO study is the first to evaluate the attitudes around LAI antipsychotics across several European countries, on a larger scale. Findings from this study offer an important insight into how physician attitudes can influence the acceptance and usage of LAI antipsychotics to treat patients with schizophrenia.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Shared decision making PLUS - a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS).

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients interact with each other. It aims at changing the traditional power asymmetry between doctors and patients by strengthening the exchange of information and the decisional position of the patient. Although SDM is generally welcomed by mental health patients as well as by mental health professionals its implementation in routine care, especially in the more acute settings, is still lacking. SDM-PLUS has been developed as an approach that addresses both patients and mental health professionals and aims at implementing SDM even for the very acutely ill patients. METHODS: The SDM-PLUS study will be performed as a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial in acute psychiatric wards. On wards allocated to the intervention group personnel will receive communication training (addressing how to implement SDM for various scenarios) and patients will receive a group intervention addressing patient skills for SDM. Wards allocated to the control condition will continue treatment as usual. A total sample size of 276 patients suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder on 12 wards is planned. The main outcome parameter will be patients' perceived involvement in decision making during the inpatient stay measured with the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire. Secondary objectives include the therapeutic relationship and long term outcomes such as medication adherence and rehospitalization rates. In addition, process measures and qualitative data will be obtained to allow for the analysis of potential barriers and facilitators of SDM-PLUS. The primary analysis will be a comparison of SDM-Q-9 sum scores 3 weeks after study inclusion (or discharge, if earlier) between the intervention and control groups. To assess the effect of the intervention on this continuous primary outcome, a random effects linear regression model will be fitted with ward (cluster) as a random effect term and intervention group as a fixed effect. DISCUSSION: This will be the first trial examining the SDM-PLUS approach for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in very acute mental health inpatient settings. Within the trial a complex intervention will be implemented that addresses both patients and health care staff to yield maximum effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010880 . Registered 09 August 2016.

The SWITCH study: rationale and design of the trial.

Many patients do not respond to the first antipsychotic drug prescribed, but require multiple trials with different drugs before response is achieved. Current treatment guidelines vary substantially in their recommendations as to how long clinicians should wait before an antipsychotic treatment attempt should be considered as failed and the compound switched. It has, however, recently been shown that poor early response to an antipsychotic is associated with continuous poor later response in the course of the same treatment attempt. This finding suggests that patients who do experience poor early response might benefit from a switch in antipsychotic medication as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. In the SWITCH trial, 350 patients suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia are randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine or amisulpride. The primary endpoint is symptomatic remission at week 8. Patients not experiencing at least minor response after 2 weeks are randomized again to either staying on the initially assigned drug or being switched to the alternative compound for another 6 weeks. In case early switching proves superior to maintaining treatment, time wasted for unsuccessful treatment attempts could be minimized, patients' outcomes improved, duration of hospital stays reduced, and thus overall treatment expenses saved. The current report will present the methods of the trial, focusing on various specific features which could be adopted by future studies.

[Influence of guideline recommendations, care structures and individual factors on the use of psychosocial therapies in severely mentally ill people]. / Einfluss von Leitlinienempfehlungen, Versorgungsstrukturen und individuellen Faktoren auf die Inanspruchnahme von psychosozialen Therapien bei schwer psychisch kranken Menschen.

OBJECTIVE: The influence of guideline recommendations and other factors on the utilization of psychosocial interventions in people with severe mental illness was examined. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional study of 397 people with severe mental illness were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Patients are less likely to receive therapies with a strong recommendation compared to other levels of recommendation. Various other factors are diffusely associated with utilization rates, but no ubiquitous predictors could be identified across all therapies. CONCLUSION: Current practice in the use of psychosocial interventions does not follow guideline recommendation strength. Interventions with strong recommendations are probably not available across services. Consequently, routine practice is not able to follow guideline recommendations according to their strength. Other consistent predictors could not be identified.

Antipsychotic drugs versus placebo for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Relapse prevention with antipsychotic drugs compared with placebo in patients with schizophrenia has not been sufficiently addressed by previous systematic reviews. We aimed to assess the association between such drugs and various outcomes in patients with schizophrenia to resolve controversial issues. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register for reports published before Nov 11, 2008; and PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for those before June 8, 2011. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. Randomised trials of patients with schizophrenia continued on or withdrawn from any antipsychotic drug regimen after stabilisation were eligible. Our primary outcome was relapse between 7 and 12 months. We also examined safety and various functional outcomes. We used the random effects model and verified results for the primary outcome with a fixed effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. FINDINGS: We identified 116 suitable reports from 65 trials, with data for 6493 patients. Antipsychotic drugs significantly reduced relapse rates at 1 year (drugs 27%vs placebo 64%; risk ratio [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·33-0·49; number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] 3, 95% CI 2-3). Fewer patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo were readmitted (10%vs 26%; RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·27-0·55; NNTB 5, 4-9), but less than a third of relapsed patients had to be admitted. Limited evidence suggested better quality of life (standardised mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -1·15 to -0·09) and fewer aggressive acts (2%vs 12%; RR 0·27, 95% CI 0·15-0·52; NNTB 11, 6-100) with antipsychotic drugs than with placebo. Employment data were scarce and too few deaths were reported to allow significant differences to be identified. More patients given antipsychotic drugs than placebo gained weight (10%vs 6%; RR 2·07, 95% CI 2·31-3·25), had movement disorders (16%vs 9%; 1·55, 1·25-1·93), and experienced sedation (13%vs 9%; 1·50, 1·22-1·84). Substantial heterogeneity in size of effect was recorded. In subgroup analyses, number of episodes, whether patients were in remission, abrupt or gradual withdrawal of treatment, length of stability before trial entry, first-generation or second-generation drugs, and allocation concealment method did not significantly affect relapse risk. Depot preparations reduced relapse (RR 0·31, 95% CI 0·21-0·41) more than did oral drugs (0·46, 0·37-0·57; p=0·03); depot haloperidol (RR 0·14, 95% CI 0·04-0·55) and fluphenazine (0·23, 0·14-0·39) had the greatest effects. The effects of antipsychotic drugs were greater in two unblinded trials (0·26, 0·17-0·39) than in most blinded studies (0·42, 0·35-0·51; p= 0·03). In a meta-regression, the difference between drug and placebo decreased with study length. INTERPRETATION: Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs benefits patients with schizophrenia. The advantages of these drugs must be weighed against their side-effects. Future studies should focus on outcomes of social participation and clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality of these drugs. FUNDING: German Ministry of Education and Research.

Clinicians' attitudes toward the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

Depot formulations are not widely used in everyday practice. This study aimed to assess psychiatrists' attitudes toward the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in schizophrenia. We interviewed 113 French psychiatrists about the factors that influenced their prescription of LAI antipsychotics. Multidimensional and cluster analyses were used to detect correlations. The most important factor against the use of LAI antipsychotics is a sufficient estimated compliance with the oral formulation. For first-generation LAI, the main factor is the risk for extrapyramidal symptoms; and for second-generation LAI, it is the unavailability of the equivalent oral formulation. Four factors incite the psychiatrists to prescribe LAI. Two different clusters of patients can also be identified. Most factors influencing the clinicians' attitudes toward the use of LAI antipsychotics are shared in many countries. Conversely, some attitudes related to organizational aspects, particularly the relevance of health care costs, may vary from one country to another.