Temporal pathways of change in two randomized controlled trials for depression and harmful drinking in Goa, India

Patient Activation of Persons With Opioid Use Disorder in Intensive Outpatient Treatment

BACKGROUND

High patient activation is associated with a variety of positive health outcomes. Although increasing patient activation in persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) in intensive outpatient treatment (IOT) programs may increase engagement and improve outcomes, little is known about how patient activation is manifested in these programs.

AIMS

To describe types of instances in which persons play an active role in their IOT or show self-determination in their recovery generally (patient activation) and types of instances in which they play a passive role in their IOT or have recovery directed by others (patient nonactivation).

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study using data from a larger grounded theory study was conducted. Interviews were completed with 14 persons with OUD who attended an IOT program within a large health care system in the Midwest. Content analysis was used to create a typology of instances of patient activation or nonactivation in participants' IOT experiences.

RESULTS

Six types of instances were identified: (1) making and enacting one's own treatment decisions, (2) actively collaborating with staff, (3) self-determining one's disclosure in groups, (4) making a commitment to treatment, (5) taking responsibility for one's recovery, and (6) taking actions to avoid return to use.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient activation is multidimensional and plays a salient role in IOT experiences. IOT staff should engage patients as active participants in their treatment and encourage mutual goal-setting and shared-decision but should be aware that some approaches used too early in treatment may impede recovery.

Scaling up the task-sharing of psychological therapies: A formative study of the PEERS smartphone application for supervision and quality assurance in rural India

Measurement-based peer supervision is one strategy to assure the quality of psychological treatments delivered by non-mental health specialist providers. In this formative study, we aimed to 1) describe the development and 2) examine the acceptability and feasibility of PEERS (Promoting Effective mental healthcare through peER Supervision)-a novel smartphone app that aims to facilitate registering and scheduling patients, collecting patient outcomes, rating therapy quality and assessing supervision quality-among frontline treatment providers delivering behavioral activation treatment for depression. The PEERS prototype was developed and tested in 2021, and version 1 was launched in 2022. To date, 215 treatment providers (98% female; ages 30-35) in Madhya Pradesh and Goa, India, have been trained to use PEERS and 65.58% have completed the supplemental, virtual PEERS course. Focus group discussions with 98 providers were examined according to four themes-training and education, app effectiveness, user experience and adherence and data privacy and safety. This yielded commonly endorsed facilitators (e.g., collaborative learning through group supervision, the convenience of consolidated patient data), barriers (e.g., difficulties with new technologies) and suggested changes (e.g., esthetic improvements, suicide risk assessment prompt). The PEERS app has the potential to scale measurement-based peer supervision to facilitate quality assurance of psychological treatments across contexts.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

Activation in persons with mental health disorders: An integrative review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between patient activation (i.e. confidence, knowledge and skills to self-manage health) and positive health behaviours and outcomes in a variety of clinical populations. Because persons with mental health disorders experience significant disease burden but often underutilize mental health treatment or experience poor treatment outcomes, they would likely benefit from increases in activation. No systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize and synthesize research on patient activation in persons with mental health disorders. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review to identify factors associated with activation and interventions that have shown to be effective in persons with mental health disorders. This integrative review indicates that better health status, less depression, positive health attitudes and behaviours, and higher quality therapeutic relationships may be associated with higher levels of activation in persons with mental health disorders. This review also indicates that a variety of interventions, most notably educational programs, are effective in increasing levels of patient activation in persons with mental health disorders. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Psychiatric mental health nurses and other clinicians should consider routine assessment of patient activation to inform individualized treatment plans for their clients. Clinicians should aim to form high-quality therapeutic relationships with clients as a way to promote higher levels of activation. Interventions that have been found to be effective in improving activation could be offered in a variety of mental health settings. ABSTRACT: Introduction Patient activation is understanding one's role in the healthcare process and having confidence, knowledge, and skills to self-manage one's health and health care. Researchers have begun to investigate patient activation in persons with mental health disorders, but no systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize and synthesize this research. For psychiatric mental health nurses and other clinicians to develop strategies to increase patient activation in this population, more information is needed about factors associated with activation and interventions that increase activation. Review Questions (1) What factors are associated with levels of activation in persons diagnosed with mental health disorders? (2) What interventions have shown to be effective at increasing levels of activation in persons diagnosed with mental health disorders? Method A 5-stage integrative review as described by Whittemore & Knafl. Results Twenty-nine articles were included in the review. Ten provided correlations between activation and other factors, and 20 examined the effects of interventions on activation. Some studies revealed significant correlations between a variety of health and treatment-related factors, and others revealed that some interventions, most notably educational programs, were shown to increase activation. Discussion The findings of this comprehensive review can inform psychiatric mental health nurses and other clinicians in developing strategies to increase activation in the patients with whom they work. More research is needed to provide a deeper understanding of the role of activation in the recovery and treatment of persons with mental health disorders. Implications for Practice Psychiatric nurses and other clinicians should assess for patient activation and incorporate strategies to increase levels of activation in patients in their practice. Positive therapeutic relationships likely enhance activation in persons with mental health disorders.

Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) through non-specialist providers and telemedicine: a study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety impact up to 1 in 5 pregnant and postpartum women worldwide. Yet, as few as 20% of these women are treated with frontline interventions such as evidence-based psychological treatments. Major barriers to uptake are the limited number of specialized mental health treatment providers in most settings, and problems with accessing in-person care, such as childcare or transportation. Task sharing of treatment to non-specialist providers with delivery on telemedicine platforms could address such barriers. However, the equivalence of these strategies to specialist and in-person models remains unproven.

METHODS

This study protocol outlines the Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) randomized trial. SUMMIT is a pragmatic, non-inferiority test of the comparable effectiveness of two types of providers (specialist vs. non-specialist) and delivery modes (telemedicine vs. in-person) of a brief, behavioral activation (BA) treatment for perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Specialists (psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers with ≥ 5 years of therapy experience) and non-specialists (nurses and midwives with no formal training in mental health care) were trained in the BA protocol, with the latter supervised by a BA expert during treatment delivery. Consenting pregnant and postpartum women with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score of ≥ 10 (N = 1368) will be randomized to one of four arms (telemedicine specialist, telemedicine non-specialist, in-person specialist, in-person non-specialist), stratified by pregnancy status (antenatal/postnatal) and study site. The primary outcome is participant-reported depressive symptoms (EPDS) at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes are maternal symptoms of anxiety and trauma symptoms, perceived social support, activation levels and quality of life at 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-randomization, and depressive symptoms at 6- and 12-month post-randomization. Primary analyses are per-protocol and intent-to-treat. The study has successfully continued despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with needed adaptations, including temporary suspension of the in-person arms and ongoing randomization to telemedicine arms.

DISCUSSION

The SUMMIT trial is expected to generate evidence on the non-inferiority of BA delivered by a non-specialist provider compared to specialist and telemedicine compared to in-person. If confirmed, results could pave the way to a dramatic increase in access to treatment for perinatal depression and anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153864 . Registered on November 6, 2019.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.