Effects of a brief intervention for substance use on tobacco smoking and family relationship functioning in schizophrenia and related psychoses: a randomised controlled trial

The adaptation of clinical practice guideline recommendations regarding family-centered collaborative care of people living with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar mood disorder in the Iranian context: using the resource toolkit for guideline adaptation

INTRODUCTION

Chronic mental diseases are enduring and recurring, and need constant care and a collaborative approach for management. Based on clinical guidelines, family interventions can improve the quality of care for individuals with chronic mental diseases.

OBJECTIVE

Specifically, the study examined family involvement in the care of people suffering from schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar mood disorder by adapting international clinical guidelines.

METHODS

The resource toolkit for guideline adaptation was selected as the adaptation process. Seven databases were searched for international clinical guidelines. Independent reviewers utilized the Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II tools to assess guidelines that met the inclusion and quality criteria. The recommendations from the guidelines were combined with those from the systematic review and qualitative research, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research checklists. Rephrased recommendations with redundant or overlapping content were excluded from the Iranian context due to the cultural, religious and belief changes of the people, as well as the lack of necessary facilities. Translations of the selected recommendations were made into Persian, along with modified recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 573 recommendations from 17 books, 10 national documents, 16 guidelines, 27 articles, and 31 English and Persian theses were identified. After the initial review (referred to as RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method 1), 467 recommendations received an appropriate score, 106 had an uncertain score, and none of them received an inappropriate score. After merging the recommendations, they received 433 good grades and 98 uncertain grades. After the face-to-face meeting of the research team, 7 were merged due to similarity, and 91 recommendations were made in a hybrid panel of experts (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method 2). Finally, 524 recommendations were identified that applied to the psychiatric medical centers in Iran. The examined and revised recommendations suggest healthcare professional interventions for family involvement in the care of patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar mood disorder referred to medical centers in Iran. The adapted recommendations emphasize the need for family-centered collaborative care ( interventions which satisfy the needs of patients with chronic mental diseases and their caregivers, considering their preferences and capabilities.

Family-based interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia often experience long-term psychosocial disabilities and frequent relapse. Family plays a key role in caring for ill relatives, which in turn probably contributes to high levels of distress and burdens for the family. Family-based interventions have been developed and applied to family members and their relatives with schizophrenia to improve their outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was last updated in 2011, which has been split into this review, one on group- versus individual-based family interventions and one on family-based cognitive versus behavioural management interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from inception until April 2023: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and accessible reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families and reported at least one patient's and one family member's outcomes. In this update, we only investigated standard care as the comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. We pooled data and estimated effects with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We judged the certainty of evidence using GRADEpro GDT. We divided the outcomes into short-term (≤ 1 month postintervention), medium-term (> 1 to 6 months postintervention), and long-term follow-up (> 6 months postintervention), if available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 26 RCTs in this review, with 1985 people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders, and 2056 family members. Most family-based interventions were conducted on a weekly or biweekly basis, with duration ranging from five weeks to two years. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies given that we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias and several studies at high risk of detection, attrition or reporting bias. Low-certainty evidence indicated that family-based interventions may reduce patients' relapse at one month or less postintervention (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; 4 RCTs, 229 participants). We downgraded the evidence by two levels due to imprecision (small number of participants) and high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. Compared to standard care, family-based interventions probably reduce caregiver burden at one month or less postintervention (MD -5.84, 95% CI -6.77 to -4.92; 8 RCTs, 563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in more family members shifting from high to low expressed emotion (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.11 to 13.71; 2 RCTs, 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Family interventions may result in little to no difference in patients' death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.32; 6 RCTs, 304 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (≤ 1 month postintervention; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence) in comparison with standard care. Due to the heterogeneous measures and various follow-up periods, we were unable to provide pooled effect estimates for patients' compliance with medication and quality of life. We were very uncertain whether family interventions resulted in enhanced compliance with medication and improved quality of life for patients. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to high risk of bias across studies, inconsistency (different directions of effects across studies), and imprecision (small number of participants or CIs of most studies including the possibility of no effect).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised the latest evidence on family interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families. This review suggests that family interventions might improve patients' outcomes (e.g. relapse) and families' outcomes (e.g. caregiver burden and expressed emotion), with little to no difference in patients' hospital admission and adverse effects in terms of death. However, evidence on patients' compliance with medication and quality of life was very uncertain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low certainty. Future large and well-designed RCTs are needed to provide more reliable evaluation of effects of family interventions in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families.

How can healthcare providers involve with families in the care of patients with chronic mental illness? A mixed methods protocol study to adapt the clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Chronic mental illnesses have long periods, are recurring, and require continuous care as well as an integrated and collaborative approach to organize the care. The purpose of this article is to summarize the most important steps necessary for adapting a clinical practice guideline for family-centered collaborative care of patients with chronic mental illnesses referring to the medical centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As the study will be an exploratory mixed methods study, the design will be carried out as a sequential qualitative-quantitative study (QUAL quan), consisting of 3 phases, 9 modules, and 24 sequential steps, which is based on the Guidelines International Network to adapt the guideline manual. In the first phase, the prerequisites for adaptation of the clinical guideline were established. In the second phase, to collect evidence, a qualitative study (semi-structured interview) will be conducted to explore the dimensions and components of the care needs of patients with chronic mental disorders and their families from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Additionally, a literature review to extract relevant clinical guidelines and articles will be done. A panel of experts will screen and evaluate potential clinical guidelines, and a draft guideline will be developed.

DISCUSSION

It is expected that these findings will meet the needs of patients with mental illness and their caregivers by providing integrated care and improving collaborative care within the sociocultural context of Iran.

Personalized feedback intervention for individuals with low distress tolerance who smoke cigarettes: A randomized controlled trial of a digital intervention

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the United States and frequently co-occurs with anxiety and depressive symptoms. A novel and integrative, theory-driven approach to address the heterogeneity of mood-related symptoms associated with cigarette use is to focus on transdiagnostic processes, such as distress tolerance, that underpin both mood-related symptoms and smoking behavior. The current study sought to develop and examine the feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy of a digitally delivered integrated personalized feedback intervention (PFI) that addresses smoking-distress tolerance relations.

METHODS

Participants included 121 adults (71.1 % male; Mage = 29.33 years, SD = 7.52) who smoked cigarettes daily and reported low distress tolerance. The study randomized participants to the Active PFI (feedback on distress tolerance and smoking) or the Control PFI (feedback on smoking only).

RESULTS

Results indicated feasibility and acceptability demonstrated by the ability to retain participants through the 1-month follow-up (98.2 % retention rate) and positive feedback from participants, including satisfaction regarding the Active PFI. The Active PFI (vs. Control PFI) was also a statistically significant predictor of change in motivation and intention to quit smoking and willingness to use adaptive coping strategies from baseline to 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with low distress tolerance who smoke cigarettes, this study's findings suggest that the current intervention may be a first-step to aid in increasing motivation/intention to quit smoking and willingness to use adaptive coping strategies.

Family-centered collaborative care for patients with chronic mental illness: A systematic review

Background

Chronic mental illnesses (CMI) are long lasting and reoccurring and require continuous care as well as an integrated and collaborative approach to organize the care. This study sought to examine whether family centered collaborative care is an acceptable treatment option for individuals with CMI.

Materials and Methods

From the years 2000 to 2021, ten electronic databases relating to family centered collaborative care for mental illness were searched adopting Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis checklist. Twenty seven relevant articles and a thesis from among 6956 studies retrieved, were assessed their quality appraisal through four standardized tools. The studies were rated as good, moderate, or poor. Studies were calibrated, different opinions were discussed, and extracted data were done.

Results

Evidence included 11 randomized controlled trials (from 19 articles), one randomized control trial, three mixed methods studies (from 3 articles and 1 thesis), and a qualitative study (from 4 articles). The quality of seven studies was good, 15 were moderate quality, and seven were poor quality. According to moderate to high quality qualitative research, family centered collaborative care was considered an acceptable intervention; though a few studies supported it.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrated that family involvement in the care of patients with CMI affects no recurrence of the disease, and no re hospitalization of patients with this disorder. As a result, engaging family members in the care process can have a positive impact on the health and well being of these patients.

Barriers to family involvement in the care of patients with chronic mental illnesses: A qualitative study

Introduction

Caregivers are patients' family members or intimate friends who take care of individuals suffering from chronic mental illnesses without being paid. Evidence has supported the role of family-centered collaborative care in the treatment of patients with chronic mental illnesses. It has also been emphasized by national policies. However, carrying out this type of care is accompanied by challenges in Iran. Considering the importance of family participation in taking care of these patients as well as the necessity to determine its effective factors, the present study aimed to assess the barriers to family involvement in the care of patients with chronic mental illnesses.

Method

A conventional content analysis was used to conduct this qualitative study. Thirty four health care providers, patients, and caregivers were interviewed unstructured in-depth face-to-face using purposive sampling. Until saturation of data, sampling and data analysis were conducted simultaneously. Graneheim and Lundman's method was used to record, transcribe, and analyze the interviews.

Result

The results showed that there were many barriers to the collaboration of family in the care of patients with chronic mental illnesses. Accordingly, four main categories and twelve subcategories were extracted from the data as follows: "family-related barriers", "treatment-related factors", "disease nature threatening care", and "mental disease-associated stigma in the society".

Conclusion

The findings presented the barriers to family centers' collaborative care in patients with chronic mental illnesses and the necessary components of family involvement in the care to be used by healthcare managers and policymakers. The reported barriers emphasize the need for the development of structured approaches whose implementation is easy for health care providers, does not require a lot of time and resources, and can improve patient and family outcomes.

Smoking Is Related to Reduced Motivation, But Not Global Cognition, in the First Two Years of Treatment for First Episode Psychosis

Smoking is highly prevalent in people with psychotic disorders, even in the earliest phases of the illness. The neural mechanisms of nicotine dependence and psychosis overlap and may also be linked to deficits in neurocognition and motivation in psychosis. Both neurocognition and motivation are recognized as important clinical targets, though previous research examining the effects of smoking on these features has been inconsistent. Here, we examine the relationships between smoking status and neurocognition and motivation over the first two years of treatment for psychosis through a secondary analysis of the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode-Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP) dataset. In a sample of 404 individuals with first-episode psychosis, we examined linear mixed-effects models with the group (smoker vs. non-smoker) by time (baseline, 12-month, 24-month) interaction as a predictor of global cognition and motivation. While all individuals showed enhanced global cognition and motivation over the 24-month course of treatment, non-smokers showed significantly greater gains in motivation. These changes in motivation also corresponded to improvements in functioning over the 24-month period. No significant effects of smoking were observed for global cognition. Our findings suggest that motivation and smoking cessation may be important early treatment targets for first-episode psychosis programs.

Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking in persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The rates and intensity of tobacco use are higher in persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (PwS) compared to the general population, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. We aimed to systematically review randomised control trials (RCTs) that used non-pharmacological interventions to reduce or cease tobacco use in PwS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EBSCO, ProQuest and PsycINFO for RCTs, published between January 2004 and December 2019, which included adult PwS. Studies providing self-reported or biochemically measured reduction of tobacco use and cessation after a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for assessing the quality of selected studies.

RESULTS

Of the six included trials, two compared non-pharmacological interventions alone while four compared combinations with pharmacological interventions with routine care. The non-pharmacological interventions varied widely. Continuous abstinence and seven days point-prevalence abstinence (7 PPA) were reported in 2 and 4 studies respectively, with one study assessing both. All six trials measured reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked, but only two trials reported significant reductions in intervention groups. No worsening of psychiatric symptoms was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Two trials were rated as "low risk", and 4 trials as "some concerns" on the ROB tool. Heterogeneity among trials precluded meta-analysis. Abstinence was significantly higher among groups who were given combination interventions, and intervention groups in studies showed significantly greater or a trend towards reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked than controls. No specific method of non-pharmacological management was conclusively favoured.

IMPLICATIONS

Reduction in cigarettes smoked seemed to significantly favour or show non-significant trends favouring intervention groups over controls, while abstinence was significantly higher among groups in studies that used specific combination interventions. Combinations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment were better than non-pharmacological interventions used in isolation, for facilitating abstinence and reduction in cigarettes smoked. Specific interventions such as home visits and contingent reinforcement merit further study. Trials included in this study were conducted in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. Thus, the application of these interventions to low and middle-income countries (LAMICs) needs to be further studied.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or 'buddies' may encourage abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component.

SEARCH METHODS

We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One of these studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly. We judged one of the included studies to be at high risk of selection bias, but a sensitivity analysis suggests that this did not have an impact on the results. There were also potential issues with detection bias due to a lack of validation of abstinence in five of the 14 studies; however, this is not apparent in the statistically homogeneous results across studies. Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for the two primary outcomes as low. We downgraded due to the risk of bias, as we judged studies with a high weighting in analyses to be at a high risk of detection bias. In addition, a study in both analyses was insufficiently randomised. We also downgraded the quality of the evidence for indirectness, as very few studies provided any evidence that the interventions tested actually increased the amount of partner support received by participants in the relevant intervention group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to enhance partner support appear to have no impact on increasing long-term abstinence from smoking. However, most interventions that assessed partner support showed no evidence that the interventions actually achieved their aim and increased support from partners for smoking cessation. Future research should therefore focus on developing behavioural interventions that actually increase partner support, and test this in small-scale studies, before large trials assessing the impact on smoking cessation can be justified.

Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions

BACKGROUND

Caregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether caregiver-mediated (non-clinical caregiver-delivered) interventions are effective in improving patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus databases from inception to February 27, 2017. Interventions (with a comparison group) reporting on a quality improvement intervention mediated by a caregiver and directed to a patient, in all ages and patient-care settings, were selected for inclusion. A three-category framework was developed to characterize caregiver-mediated interventions: inform (e.g., provide knowledge), activate (e.g., prompt action), and collaborate (e.g., lead to interaction between caregivers and other groups [e.g., care providers]).

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 64% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most commonly assessed outcomes were patient- (n = 40) and caregiver-oriented (n = 33); few health system- (n = 10) and provider-oriented (n = 2) outcomes were reported. Patient outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) were most improved by caregiver-mediated interventions that provided condition and treatment education (e.g., symptom management information) and practical condition-management support (e.g., practicing medication protocol). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., stress-related/psychiatric outcomes) were most improved by interventions that activated caregiver roles (e.g., monitoring blood glucose) and provided information related to that action (e.g., why and how to monitor). The risk of bias was generally high, and the overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate, based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large body of research, including many RCTs, to support the use of caregiver-mediated interventions that inform and activate caregivers to improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Select caregiver-mediated interventions improve patient (inform-activate) and caregiver (inform-activate-collaborate) outcomes and should be considered by all researchers implementing patient- and family-oriented research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

PROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .

Feasibility and Acceptability of the 'HABIT' Group Programme for Comorbid Bipolar and Alcohol and Substance use Disorders

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of an integrated group therapy (called HABIT) for comorbid bipolar disorder (BD) and alcohol and substance use disorders (ASUD) (BD-ASUD), a disabling clinical presentation for which no specific treatment has been validated. The 14-session HABIT programme employs psychoeducation-oriented cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) followed by mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) therapy.

METHOD

Potential group participants were recruited from adult clients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BD and an ASUD who were referred by their treating clinician. Observer-rated changes in mood symptoms and ASUD, attendance rates and subjective feedback are reported.

RESULTS

Eight of 12 clients referred to the programme initially agreed to join the group, six attended the first group session and five clients completed the programme. Group mean scores for mood symptoms improved over time, with slightly greater reductions in depression during the first module. About 50% of individuals showed clinically significant improvement (≥30% reduction) in alcohol and substance use. Attendance rates showed some variability between individuals and across sessions, but the average attendance rate of the group was marginally higher for the first module (86%) as compared with the second module (77%). Most clients reported high levels of general satisfaction with a group specifically targeted at individuals with BD-ASUD.

CONCLUSION

This small pilot study suggests our intensive group therapy is acceptable and feasible. If findings are replicated, we may have identified a therapy that, for the first time, leads to improvement in both mood and substance use outcomes in clients with difficult-to-treat comorbid BD-ASUD. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message Comorbidity between bipolar and alcohol and substance use disorders (BD-ASUD) is frequent and highly disabling; Therapeutic research on approaches that can simultaneously help BD and ASUD is lacking; Previous research highlights the need for integrated treatment of both conditions but showed improvements limited to either element of the comorbid disorder; This pilot study supports the feasibility and acceptability of an intensive, 14-session group therapy programme that integrates CBT and mindfulness approaches.