Strategies for implementation of early intervention for psychosis in a catchment area mental health system: a mixed methods comparison

Specialised early intervention teams (extended time) for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with FEP and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced, a recent-onset psychosis. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. Evidence suggests that once SEI treatment ends, improvements may not be sustained, bringing uncertainty about the optimal duration of SEI to ensure the best long-term outcomes. Extending SEI has been proposed as a way of providing continued intensive treatment and continuity of care, of usually up to five years, in order to a) sustain the positive initial outcomes of SEI; and b) improve the long-term trajectory of the illness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare extended SEI teams with treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. To compare extended SEI teams with standard SEI teams followed by TAU (standard SEI + TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis and all RCTs comparing extended SEI with standard SEI + TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting usable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs, with a total 780 participants, aged 16 to 35 years. All participants met the criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders or affective psychoses. No trials compared extended SEI with TAU. All three trials randomly allocated people approximately two years into standard SEI to either extended SEI or standard SEI + TAU. The certainty of evidence for outcomes varied from low to very low. Our primary outcomes were recovery and disengagement from mental health services. No trials reported on recovery, and we used remission as a proxy. Three trials reported on remission, with the point estimate suggesting a 13% increase in remission in favour of extended SEI, but this included wide confidence intervals (CIs) and a very uncertain estimate of no benefit (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.31; 3 trials, 780 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials provided data on disengagement from services with evidence that extended SEI care may result in fewer disengagements from mental health treatment (15%) in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (34%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; 2 trials, 380 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in rates of psychiatric hospital admission (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.52; 1 trial, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence), or the number of days spent in a psychiatric hospital (MD -2.70, 95% CI -8.30 to 2.90; 1 trial, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial found uncertain evidence regarding lower global psychotic symptoms in extended SEI in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (MD -1.90, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.52; 1 trial, 156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of extended SEI over standard SEI + TAU resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality, as so few deaths were recorded in trials (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64; 3 trials, 780 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very uncertain evidence suggests that using extended SEI instead of standard SEI + TAU may not improve global functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.76; 2 trials, 560 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias in all three trials for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and other biases. All three trials had high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. For the risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessments and incomplete outcome data there was at least one trial with high or unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be preliminary evidence of benefit from extending SEI team care for treating people experiencing psychosis, with fewer people disengaging from mental health services. Evidence regarding other outcomes was uncertain. The certainty of evidence for the measured outcomes was low or very low. Further, suitably powered studies that use a consistent approach to outcome selection are needed, but with only one further ongoing trial, there is unlikely to be any definitive conclusion for the effectiveness of extended SEI for at least the next few years.

Specialised early intervention teams for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.

OBJECTIVES

To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.

Systematic review of the evidence for service models delivering early intervention in psychosis outside the stand-alone centre

AIM

Although early intervention in psychosis is an accepted policy internationally, the evidence base for this paradigm, originates mostly from the specialist model. In a real world setting, variations of this model are often implemented. The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate the evidence for delivering early intervention outside the specialist stand-alone centre.

METHODS

A systematic search following the PRISMA guidelines was undertaken in Medline, PsycInfo, Embase and the Cochrane trials register. The search was limited to articles in English from 1990 to end of January 2016. Inclusion criteria for the review comprised comparative evaluations of services delivering early intervention in psychosis outside the specialist model. Exclusion criteria included prodromal services, descriptions of services without reference to a comparator and stand-alone specialist services evaluated in comparison to treatment as usual.

RESULTS

There were 637 unique citations. Twenty-eight papers were reviewed at second-stage screening. The majority were excluded as they compared specialist early intervention with treatment as usual, did not evaluate the first episode or had no comparator. Seven peer-reviewed publications and two conference papers fulfilled criteria evaluating models of delivering early intervention other than the specialist model.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a spaucity of evidence evaluating models other than specialist models in early intervention. Published studies are heterogeneous in design and outcome. Although there have been two recent trials evaluating integrated early intervention in comparison with treatment as usual, it remains unclear whether reported improved outcomes of specialist centres apply to other models.

Non-specialist health worker interventions for the care of mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Many people with mental, neurological and substance-use disorders (MNS) do not receive health care. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) and other professionals with health roles (OPHRs) are a key strategy for closing the treatment gap.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of NSHWs and OPHRs delivering MNS interventions in primary and community health care in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 21 June 2012); MEDLINE, OvidSP; MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, OvidSP; EMBASE, OvidSP (searched 15 June 2012); CINAHL, EBSCOhost; PsycINFO, OvidSP (searched 18 and 19 June 2012); World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Library (searched 29 June 2012); LILACS; the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO); OpenGrey; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (searched 8 and 9 August 2012); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge) (searched 2 October 2012) and reference lists, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted-time-series studies of NSHWs/OPHR-delivered interventions in primary/community health care in low- and middle-income countries, and intended to improve outcomes in people with MNS disorders and in their carers. We defined an NSHW as any professional health worker (e.g. doctors, nurses and social workers) or lay health worker without specialised training in MNS disorders. OPHRs included people outside the health sector (only teachers in this review).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors double screened, double data-extracted and assessed risk of bias using standard formats. We grouped studies with similar interventions together. Where feasible, we combined data to obtain an overall estimate of effect.

MAIN RESULTS

The 38 included studies were from seven low- and 15 middle-income countries. Twenty-two studies used lay health workers, and most addressed depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review shows that the use of NSHWs, compared with usual healthcare services: 1. may increase the number of adults who recover from depression or anxiety, or both, two to six months after treatment (prevalence of depression: risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.64; low-quality evidence); 2. may slightly reduce symptoms for mothers with perinatal depression (severity of depressive symptoms: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.26; low-quality evidence); 3. may slightly reduce the symptoms of adults with PTSD (severity of PTSD symptoms: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.05; low-quality evidence); 4. probably slightly improves the symptoms of people with dementia (severity of behavioural symptoms: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.08; moderate-quality evidence); 5. probably improves/slightly improves the mental well-being, burden and distress of carers of people with dementia (carer burden: SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.15; moderate-quality evidence); 6. may decrease the amount of alcohol consumed by people with alcohol-use disorders (drinks/drinking day in last 7 to 30 days: mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -2.79 to -0.57); low-quality evidence).It is uncertain whether lay health workers or teachers reduce PTSD symptoms among children. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of using NSHWs or teachers, or about their impact on people with other MNS conditions. In addition, very few studies measured adverse effects of NSHW-led care - such effects could impact on the appropriateness and quality of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, NSHWs and teachers have some promising benefits in improving people's outcomes for general and perinatal depression, PTSD and alcohol-use disorders, and patient- and carer-outcomes for dementia. However, this evidence is mostly low or very low quality, and for some issues no evidence is available. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions about which specific NSHW-led interventions are more effective.