A pilot study to assess the feasibility and impact of a brief motivational intervention on problem drug and alcohol use in adult mental health inpatient units: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

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.

Substance misuse brief interventions during psychiatric hospital admissions

Purpose

To provide a summary of the principles, theories and basic components of a recently developed brief integrated motivational intervention (BIMI) for working with individuals experience co-ccurring severe mental health and substance use problems in inpatient settings, including the outcomes of a feasiblity randomised controlled trial (RCT). There are greater financial costs and a negative impact on functioning associated with psychiatric admissions for people who experience co-occurring severe mental heath and substance misuse problems. In addition, their engagement in treatment is often problematic.

Design/methodology/approach

The BIMI described was evaluated via a feasibility RCT that assessed whether the opportunity to discuss use of substances whilst on an inpatient ward represented an opportunity to engage inpatients in thinking about their use and the impact it has on their mental health.

Findings

The BIMI is delivered in short burst sessions of 15-30 minutes over a two-week period adopting a simple 3-step approach that can be delivered by routine ward staff. It incorporates an assessment of substance use, mental health and motivation followed by personalised feedback, a focus on increasing awareness of the impact on mental health and development of goals and a change plan. The intervention has been shown to lead to higher levels of engagement in clients exploration of substance use and the impact on mental health. Findings suggest both staff and inpatients found the intervention feasible and acceptable.

Originality/value

Routine ward staff were trained to deliver a brief intervention to inpatients during an acute hospital admission.

Acute Whiplash Injury Study (AWIS): a protocol for a cluster randomised pilot and feasibility trial of an Active Behavioural Physiotherapy Intervention in an insurance private setting

INTRODUCTION

Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) causes substantial social and economic burden internationally. Up to 60% of patients with WAD progress to chronicity. Research therefore needs to focus on effective management in the acute stage to prevent the development of chronicity. Approximately 93% of patients are classified as WADII (neck complaint and musculoskeletal sign(s)), and in the UK, most are managed in the private sector. In our recent systematic review, a combination of active and behavioural physiotherapy was identified as potentially effective in the acute stage. An Active Behavioural Physiotherapy Intervention (ABPI) was developed through combining empirical (modified Delphi study) and theoretical (social cognitive theory focusing on self-efficacy) evidence. This pilot and feasibility trial has been designed to inform the design of an adequately powered definitive randomised controlled trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two parallel phases. (1) An external pilot and feasibility cluster randomised double-blind (assessor and participants), parallel two-arm (ABPI vs standard physiotherapy) clinical trial to evaluate procedures and feasibility. Six UK private physiotherapy clinics will be recruited and cluster randomised by a computer-generated randomisation sequence. Sixty participants (30 each arm) will be assessed at recruitment (baseline) and at 3 months postbaseline. The planned primary outcome measure is the neck disability index. (2) An embedded exploratory qualitative study using semistructured indepth interviews (n=3-4 physiotherapists) and a focus group (n=6-8 patients) and entailing the recruitment of purposive samples will explore perceptions of the ABPI. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively. Qualitative data will be coded and analysed deductively (identify themes) and inductively (identify additional themes).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial is approved by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee (ERN_15-0542).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN84528320.

Pilot randomised trial of a brief intervention for comorbid substance misuse in psychiatric in-patient settings

OBJECTIVE

This proof of principle study evaluated the effectiveness and feasibility of a brief motivational intervention, delivered in mental health in-patient settings, to improve engagement in treatment for drug and alcohol misuse.

METHOD

A randomised controlled trial using concealed randomisation, blind, independent assessment of outcome at 3 months. Participants were 59 new adult admissions, to six acute mental health hospital units in one UK mental health service, with schizophrenia related or bipolar disorder diagnoses, users of community mental health services and also misusing alcohol and/or drugs. Participants were randomised to Brief Integrated Motivational Intervention (BIMI) with Treatment As Usual (TAU), or TAU alone. The BIMI took place over a 2-week period and encouraged participants to explore substance use and its impact on mental health.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine in-patients (BIMI n = 30; TAU n = 29) were randomised, the BIMI was associated with a 63% relative odds increase in the primary outcome engagement in treatment [OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.01-2.65; P = 0.047)], at 3 months. Qualitative interviews with staff and participants indicated that the BIMI was both feasible and acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Mental health hospital admissions present an opportunity for brief motivational interventions focussed on substance misuse and can lead to improvements in engagement.