Effectiveness and efficiency of assertive outreach for Schizophrenia in Germany: study protocol on a pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Physical Healthcare, Health-Related Quality of Life and Global Functioning of Persons with a Severe Mental Illness in Belgian Long-Term Mental Health Assertive Outreach Teams: A Cross-Sectional Self-Reported Survey

Research shows that care delivery regarding somatic health problems for patients with a severe mental illness (SMI) in community and mental health is difficult to establish. During the last decade, long term mental health outreach teams in Belgium were implemented to provide treatment and follow-up at home. This study aimed to map physical health status, care professionals, health related quality of life and global functioning in persons with SMI in Belgian long term outreach teams for mental health. Using a self-administered questionnaire, 173 persons, 58.1% female with a mean age of 48.3, were questioned. Our findings suggest an undertreatment of somatic comorbid conditions, with only half of physical health complaints being addressed. Although treatment rates for hypertension, when detected were high, treatment of respiratory complaints, pain and fatigue was lacking. Although the majority of respondents responded to have a GP or psychiatrist, contact rates were rather limited. Other disciplines, such as primary care nurses, when present, tend to have more contact with people with SMI. Notably, having regular contacts with GPs seems to improve physical health complaints and/or treatment. Being treated by an outreach team did not show significant correlations with physical health complaints and/or treatment suggesting a more proactive approach by outreach teams or primary care providers is desirable.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care program for schizophrenia: an analysis of routine data

In Germany, a regional social health insurance fund provides an integrated care program for patients with schizophrenia (IVS). Based on routine data of the social health insurance, this evaluation examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the IVS compared to the standard care (control group, CG). The primary outcome was the reduction of psychiatric inpatient treatment (days in hospital), and secondary outcomes were schizophrenia-related inpatient treatment, readmission rates, and costs. To reduce selection bias, a propensity score matching was performed. The matched sample included 752 patients. Mean number of psychiatric and schizophrenia-related hospital days of patients receiving IVS (2.3 ± 6.5, 1.7 ± 5.0) per quarter was reduced, but did not differ statistically significantly from CG (2.7 ± 7.6, 1.9 ± 6.2; p = 0.772, p = 0.352). Statistically significant between-group differences were found in costs per quarter per person caused by outpatient treatment by office-based psychiatrists (IVS: €74.18 ± 42.30, CG: €53.20 ± 47.96; p < 0.001), by psychiatric institutional outpatient departments (IVS: €4.83 ± 29.57, CG: €27.35 ± 76.48; p < 0.001), by medication (IVS: €471.75 ± 493.09, CG: €429.45 ± 532.73; p = 0.015), and by psychiatric outpatient nursing (IVS: €3.52 ± 23.83, CG: €12.67 ± 57.86, p = 0.045). Mean total psychiatric costs per quarter per person in IVS (€1117.49 ± 1662.73) were not significantly lower than in CG (€1180.09 ± 1948.24; p = 0.150). No statistically significant differences in total schizophrenia-related costs per quarter per person were detected between IVS (€979.46 ± 1358.79) and CG (€989.45 ± 1611.47; p = 0.084). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed cost savings of €148.59 per reduced psychiatric and €305.40 per reduced schizophrenia-related hospital day. However, limitations, especially non-inclusion of costs related to management of the IVS and additional home treatment within the IVS, restrict the interpretation of the results. Therefore, the long-term impact of this IVS deserves further evaluation.

Comparison of hospital admission rates for psychiatric patients cared for by multidisciplinary outreach teams with and without peer specialist: a retrospective cohort study of Japanese Outreach Model Project 2011-2014

OBJECTIVE

This study examined whether having peer specialists (PS) in psychiatric multidisciplinary outreach teams was associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation, improved social functioning and decreased problem behaviours.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study was a retrospective cohort study based on medical records. This study was conducted as a part of the Japanese Outreach Model Project 2011-2014, which provides services for persons diagnosed mainly as ICD-10 F0, F2 and F3, who have a high possibility of hospital admission/readmission with regular Japanese outpatient care.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 292 participants (clients) from 31 multidisciplinary outreach teams with and without PS (n=108 and 184, respectively) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was hospitalisation during follow-up. The difference in hospitalisation during the follow-up between teams with and without PS was analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model. The secondary outcome measures were social functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning, GAF) and problem behaviours (Social Behaviour Schedule, SBS) of clients, and were assessed at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Changes in social functioning and problem behaviours were compared between clients cared for by the two team types. Amount and content of the service were also compared.

RESULTS

The clients cared by teams with PS had a significantly decreased probability of hospitalisation in Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for baseline characteristics (HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89). The 6-month change in GAF or SBS was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This is an observational study in which the presence of a PS appeared to be associated with a reduced rate of hospitalisation. A randomised study would be required to demonstrate a causal relationship.

World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review examines research and practical applications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a basis for establishing specific criteria for evaluating relevant international scientific literature. The aims were to establish the extent of international dissemination and use of WHODAS 2.0 and analyze psychometric research on its various translations and adaptations. In particular, we wanted to highlight which psychometric features have been investigated, focusing on the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this instrument.

METHOD

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we conducted a search for publications focused on "whodas" using the ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases.

RESULTS

We identified 810 studies from 94 countries published between 1999 and 2015. WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and used in 27 areas of research (40% in psychiatry).

CONCLUSIONS

The growing number of studies indicates increasing interest in the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing individual functioning and disability in different settings and individual health conditions. The WHODAS 2.0 shows strong correlations with several other measures of activity limitations; probably due to the fact that it shares the same disability latent variable with them. Implications for Rehabilitation WHODAS 2.0 seems to be a valid, reliable self-report instrument for the assessment of disability. The increasing interest in use of the WHODAS 2.0 extends to rehabilitation and life sciences rather than being limited to psychiatry. WHODAS 2.0 is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations. A critical issue for rehabilitation is that a single "minimal clinically important .difference" score for the WHODAS 2.0 has not yet been established.

Clinical and Functional Outcome of Assertive Outreach for Patients With Schizophrenic Disorder: Results of a Quasi-Experimental Controlled Trial

Background

The majority of studies support modern assertive health service models. However, the evidence is limited for parts of continental Europe, as well as for the pharmacological adherence outcome parameter.

Method

We conducted a quasi-experimental controlled trial including adult patients with a schizophreniform disorder and a maximum of 60 points on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Interventions (n = 176) and controls (TAU, n = 142) were assessed every six-month within one year in 17 study practices in rural areas. Mental and functional state were rated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the GAF. Functional limitations and pharmacological adherence were patient-rated using the WHO-Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS–II) and the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS). We computed multilevel mixed models.

Results

The GAF and BPRS of both groups improved significantly, yet the increase in the intervention group was significantly higher. In contrast, patient-rated variables – WHODAS–II and MARS – neither showed a stable temporal improvement nor a difference between groups.

Conclusion

Our findings only partly support the investigated AO intervention, because of conflicting results between clinician- and patient-ratings. Accordingly, the benefits of AO need to be further evaluated.

Community outreach for patients who have difficulties in maintaining contact with mental health services: longitudinal retrospective study of the Japanese outreach model project

BACKGROUND

Japan still has the highest ratio of beds devoted to psychiatric patients in the world. In 2011, in order to reduce re-hospitalization of patients who became disconnected from regular contact with outpatient medical services, the Japanese Ministry established the Japanese Outreach Model Project (JOMP). In this study, we will explicate the JOMP project protocol and investigate the rate and length of hospital admission, impairments of social function and problematic behavior at the follow-up period (6- and 12-month) and time of services provided by JOMP.

METHOD

This longitudinal retrospective study used survey data collected from 32 outreach teams of 21 prefectures in Japan during September 2011 to July 2013. The outcome variables were assessed at baseline, 6-month and 12-month as to whether or not participants had been admitted to the hospital. Data from 162 participants with mental illness who had difficulties in maintaining contact with mental health services were analyzed. Repeated measures analysis of variance provided a significant effect of the intervention over time.

RESULTS

The rate of hospital admission of JOMP participants was 24.1% at 6-months and 27.2% at the 12-month follow-up. The average length of hospital-stay at baseline and 12-months was 38.7 days (SD 84.7). Compared with the baseline, the average score of the Global Assessment Functioning and the Social Behavioral Schedule were significantly improved after the 6-month and 12-month follow-up. The activity log showed that among the most often delivered JOMP services were to "prevent exacerbation of somatic symptoms" and "care for families".

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that JOMP has a strong potential to both reduce readmission rates and the length of hospital stay compared with the Japanese regular outpatient care by public insurance, and improve social function and problematic behavior. The JOMP teams provided long-term support for families. As of April 2014 JOMP was included in the National Health Insurance program in a limited way therefore an evaluation of JOMP team fidelity on readmissions must be examined.