Preliminary outcome study on assertive community treatment in Japan.

AIMS: The beneficial effects of assertive community treatment (ACT), which has been widely acclaimed as being successful in several foreign countries, must also be objectively evaluated with respect to the transition from inpatient to community-based mental health treatment in Japan. This was the first study that examined effects of the ACT program in Japan using pre/post design data of the pilot trial of the ACT program in Japan project. METHODS: The study included 41 subjects hospitalized at Kohnodai Hospital, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry between May 2003 and April 2004 for severe mental illness and who met inclusion criteria for entry regarding age, diagnosis, residence, utilization of mental health services, social adjustment, and ability to function in daily activities. All subjects provided informed consent for study participation and were followed for 1 year after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Comparison of the number of days and frequency of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and frequency of emergency psychiatric visits between the 1-year period before hospitalization and 1-year period after hospital discharge showed a significant decrease in number of days and frequency of hospitalization. Comparison at 1 year after discharge with baseline showed no change in satisfaction with overall quality of life or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores, but the Global Assessment of Functioning score significantly increased, and the antipsychotic dose (chlorpromazine equivalent) significantly decreased. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations in methodology and conclusions, this study suggests that ACT enables persons with severe mental illness to live for longer periods in the community, without worsening of symptoms, decreased social function, or deterioration in quality of life.

Measuring Community Participation Among Japanese with Serious Mental Illnesses.

Community participation is associated with physical, cognitive, and mental health benefits for people with serious mental illnesses (SMI) and is recognized as a critical component of health functioning. Developing reliable measurement of participation in different cultural contexts and languages is important to expanding knowledge in this area. The aim of this study was to translate a psychometrically sound English-language community participation measure into Japanese and examine its test-reliability with a population of Japanese people with SMI. Self-reported data were gathered twice from 253 individuals within 48 h using the Temple University Community Participation-Japanese version (TUCP-J) at Type-B Continuous Employment Support Centers in Japan between November 2020 and February 2021. Participant responses were similar on four of the five participation subscales. At the item-level, participants provided consistent responses on 26 out of 27 of the items about amount of participation and had high item-level concordance (77-93%) on their ratings of the importance (Yes; No) of each participation activity and their reported participation sufficiency (Enough; Not Enough; Too Much: 73-88%). Overall, the results demonstrated strong evidence of test-retest reliability of the TUCP-J and identified a number of areas that were important to respondents, but where they were reporting not doing enough.

Efficacy of a Peer-Led, Recovery-Oriented Shared Decision-Making System: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of a comprehensive shared decision-making system based on the CommonGround approach and incorporating peer support and a computerized decision aid were investigated. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial with six-month follow-up was conducted in Japan. Fifty-six outpatients with mental illness were randomly allocated to a shared decision-making system (intervention) group or treatment as usual (control) group. The implementation process and several outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The core components and processes of shared decision making were observed in the intervention group more frequently than in the control group. The intervention group also reported a significantly more positive participants' view of the relationship with their doctor than the control group. The intervention did not have a significant effect on most clinical and recovery-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The shared decision-making system appeared to partly improve patients' perceptions of communication and relationships with doctors but did not have a significant effect on other patient-level outcomes.