Relatives of patients with severe psychotic disorders: factors that influence contact frequency. Report from the UK700 trial

The experience of carers of patients with severe mental illness: a comparison between London and Bologna

Purpose.

The experience of care giving inventory (ECI) is a self-reported measure of the caregiving experience as seen by the carer of a person with a serious mental illness. It comprises eight negative subscales and two positive subscales; positive and negative scores are obtained from these (ECI total positive and ECI total negative). This study aims to assess the validity and the reliability of the Italian version of the ECI and to compare the experience of carers in London and Bologna as measured by the ECI.

Method.

The sample consisted of 95 Bologna carers and 69 London carers of patients suffering from a functional psychotic disorder. The internal consistency of the Italian ECI and correlation between the Italian ECI total negative and the GHQ-12 (external validity) were estimated. Independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to compare sample characteristics and mean ECI scores. Regression analyses were used to control for confounders.

Results.

Internal consistency and validity of the Italian ECI were similar to these previously found. The Bologna caregivers had a higher ECI total negative than London carers; this difference was partially explained by worse patients' functioning and by a higher proportion of parents in Bologna. Bologna carers scored significantly lower on ECI total positive after controlling for relationship and patient functioning.

Conclusions.

The Italian ECI is a well-accepted and valid instrument to describe caregiving experiences. The similar scores in ECI total negative between London and Bologna underline a cross-cultural consistency of negative experience of caregiving and re-emphasise the importance of patients functioning in different cultural contexts. The differences found for ECI total positive suggest area for further research.

The Paths to Negative and Positive Experiences of Informal Caregiving in Severe Mental Illness: A Study of Explanatory Models

The experience of caregiving in severe mental illness is a valuable concept for research and clinical practice as it can provide access to the idiosyncratic assessment of negative and positive dimensions of informal caregiving, thus allowing the design of interventions focused on reducing risk factors and promoting protective factors. This study was aimed at testing explanatory models of negative and positive experiences of caregiving considering the role of the caregiver’s perceptions of difficulties, satisfaction, and coping. A convenience sample of 159 informal caregivers of patients with schizophrenia was used in this study. Different variables were considered: (1) perception of difficulties (Caregiver’s Assessment of Difficulties Index); (2) perception of satisfaction (Caregiver’s Assessment of Satisfaction Index); (3) perception of coping (Caregiver’s Assessment of Managing Index); and (4) the experience of caregiving (Experience of Caregiving Inventory). Using structural equation modeling, the results revealed the following: (1) the perception of difficulties and of satisfaction coexist; (2) the negative experiences of caregiving are predominantly explained by the perception of difficulties and of coping with stress; and (3) the positive experiences of caregiving are mainly explained by the perception of sources of intrapersonal satisfaction, while the perception of coping does not have robust predictive value.

Relatives and their attitude to early detection of schizophrenic psychosis

Aims and Method

To assess the attitudes of relatives of patients with psychosis to early diagnosis, the respective consequences and to specialised out-patient services for early detection, we undertook a postal questionnaire survey.

Results

Eighty-five per cent of the respondents (n=200) would have visited a specialised out-patient service for early detection and 79% would have preferred to find out the diagnosis earlier. Some consequences of an early diagnosis (facing the problems associated with the illness earlier, having more appropriate behaviour towards the affected, earlier contact with other relatives and earlier treatment) are frequently mentioned.

Clinical Implications

Being favourable to both early diagnosis of psychosis and specialised out-patient services, most relatives are a useful source of support for professionals in convincing patients of diagnostic procedures and treatment.

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Relationship of quality of life with coping and burden in primary caregivers of patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Very few studies have evaluated the quality of life (QOL) of caregivers of schizophrenia patients. The aim of this paper is to study the QOL, including the spirituality, religiousness and personal beliefs (SRPB) facets, of primary caregivers of patients with schizophrenia using the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-SRPB scales. Additionally an attempt was made to study the relationship between QOL with coping and burden in caregivers.

METHOD

One hundred primary caregivers of patients with schizophrenia completed the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-SRPB scales. They were also assessed on the Family Burden Interview Schedule and Coping Checklist.

RESULTS

There were no significant associations of clinical variables and perceived burden with any of the WHOQOL-BREF domains and various WHOQOL-SRPB facets. There was a significant positive correlation between WHOQOL-BREF and various facets of WHOQOL-SRPB. There was a significant negative correlation between coercion as a coping strategy and the spiritual strength facet of WHOQOL-SRPB. Seeking social support as a coping strategy had a negative correlation with all domains of WHOQOL-BREF, whereas avoidance and use of problem-focused coping had no correlation with any of the domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Collusion as a coping skill had a negative correlation with the domains of physical health, social relationships and environment and the total WHOQOL-BREF score. Coercion as a coping strategy had a negative correlation with the general health and environment domains of WHOQOL-BREF.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of the present study suggest that there is a positive correlation between WHOQOL-BREF domains and WHOQOL-SRPB facets, which indicates that SRPB forms an integral component of the concept of QOL. Further, the QOL of caregivers is influenced by the coping skills used to deal with stress arising due to a patient's illness.

Comparative study of the experience of caregiving in bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia are disabling illnesses and place a considerable degree of burden on the caregivers. Many studies from India have measured the burden of care in schizophrenia and some studies have measured the burden experienced by the caregivers of bipolar affective disorder. Few studies have compared this variable in these disorders. Experience of caregiving is a broader concept that takes into consideration both the negative and positive appraisal of the caregiving. However, no study from India has compared the experience of caregiving in bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To study the experience of caregiving in a group of caregivers of bipolar patients and compare the same with caregivers of patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

Seventy patients with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder and 70 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were selected for the present study. Patients were assessed on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale depending upon their diagnosis. They were also assessed on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Caregivers of the patients were assessed on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Experience of Caregiving Inventory (ECI).

RESULTS

The maximum ECI score was seen in the domain of handling 'difficult behaviour' in both the groups. Compared to caregivers of patients with bipolar affective disorder, caregivers of patients with schizophrenia had overall more positive and negative appraisal of caregiving experience while caring for their ill relatives. The difference reached significant levels for all domains but for the domains of 'effects on family', 'need for back-up' and 'good aspect of relationship'. There were significant differences too for the total positive personal experience sub-score. There was a significant positive correlation between the negative and positive caregiving experience score for both schizophrenia and bipolar groups.

CONCLUSION

The caregivers of both bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia appraise the caregiving negatively, while at the same time appraising some positive aspects of it. Caregivers of schizophrenia patients appraise caregiving more negatively than those of bipolar affective disorder patients.

Benefits and difficulties in implementing family psychoeducational interventions for schizophrenia in mental health services: results from a multicentre Italian study

Aims – This study aims to explore: a) the feasibility of psycho-educational interventions for families of users with schizophrenia in clinical practice by trained staff; b) the benefits and problems encountered by professionals in the use of these interventions. Methods – 46 professionals from 23 Italian Mental Health Sen'ices (MHS) attended at a three-module training course in psycho-educational interventions and four supervisions in the subsequent year. Following the course, participants provided the intervention to families of users with schizophrenia. The difficulties and benefits encountered by trainees to use the intervention were registered on the Family Intervention Schedule.Results – 83% of the participants completed the training course. Following the course, the intervention started in 71 families from 17 MHS. 76% of trainees provided the intervention to 2-5 families, while 13% of them only held informative sessions on schizophrenia. During the supervision period, the organisational difficulties experienced by the professionals were stable, while the benefits increased. Differences in benefits and difficulties were detected in relation to the trainees’ experience and professional roles. Conclusions – It is possible to introduce psycho-educational interventions in MHS after a relatively brief period of training and supervision of the staff. Organisational difficulties need to be addressed to increase the dissemination of these interventions on a large scale.

Declaration of Interest: None of the authors has had any interest or he/she has received any form of support, including that from drug companies and honoraria for lectures and consultancies, potentially in conflict with this scientific work. None of the authors has received any form of fee for his/her participation in this study. This study was supported by grants received from the “M. Lugli” Foundation (grant n. 2/18/8) and from the National Institute of Health, Italy (grant no. 1AL/F3).

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

Risperidone dose for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Risperidone is a widely used antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia. It is important to get a balance between gaining the most positive effects for the least negative outcomes. The optimal dose of risperidone is the focus of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine risperidone dose response relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups Trials Register (July 2008) for all relevant references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreement by discussion with a third member of the team. When insufficient data were provided, we contacted the study authors. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

A consistent finding when risperidone ultra low doses (<2 mg/day) were compared with other doses (short-term data) was that more people left early because of insufficient response (n=456, 1 RCT, RR when compared with standard-low (>==4-<6 mg/day) 12.48 CI 1.43 to 4.30). The insufficient response for this low dose is reflected in measures of mental state. When low doses (>==2-<4 mg/day) are used and compared with standard-higher doses (>==6-<10 mg/day) and the high dose range (>==10 mg/day), more people left early because of insufficient response (>==4-<6 mg/day: n=173, 2 RCTs, RR 4.05 CI 1.09 to 15.07; >==10 mg/day: n=173, 2 RCTs, RR 1.92 CI 1.36 to 2.70). For the outcome of 'no clinically important improvement' results favour standard-higher doses (n=272, 2 RCTs, RR 2.26 CI 0.81 to 6.34). When low doses are compared with other higher doses, we found no differences in terms of cardiovascular, CNS, endocrine or gastrointestinal adverse effects. Unspecified EPS were more frequent with the higher doses (>==10 mg: n=262, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.24 to 0.84). One trial did find that endpoint scores on PANSS significantly favoured a low dose when compared with >==4-6 mg/day (n=124, 1 RCT, MD -12.40 CI -17.01 to -7.79). When >==4-<6 mg/day is compared with high doses, less people left early (n=677, 1 RCT, RR leaving any reason 0.74 CI 0.54 to 1.00; n=677, 1 RCT, RR due to adverse effects 0.56 CI 0.32 to 0.97). >==4-<6 mg/day was no worse than >==6-<10 mg/day for 'no clinically important improvement' (n=39, 1 RCT, RR on CGI-I 0.79 CI 0.29 to 2.17). People allocated >==4-<6 mg/day had more movement disorders than those on a low dose (n=124 1 RCT, RR 2.28 CI 1.67 to 3.11). When >==6-<10 mg/day is compared with standard-lower doses and a high dose range, there is no significant difference in terms of proportions leaving early. >==6-<10 mg/day is better than a low dose for 'no clinical important improvement' (n=172, 2 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.61 to 0.94). Overall >==6-<10 mg/day caused less problems especially in EPS when compared with >==10mg/day (n=261, 2 RCTs, RR unspecified EPS 0.56 CI 0.31 to 0.99). When a high dose was compared with a low dose less people left early (n=70, 1 RCT, RR 0.43 CI 0.26 to 0.71) but not when compared with a standard-lower dose (n=677, 1 RCT, RR leaving due to adverse event 1.78 CI 1.03 to 3.09). >==10 mg/day was better than a low dose in terms of 'no clinical important improvement' (n=257, 2 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.50 to 0.82), but worse than a standard-higher dose (>==6-<10 mg/day: n=255, 2 RCTs, RR 1.22 CI 1.00 to 1.51). >==10 mg/day caused more unspecified EPS adverse effects and any drug for adverse events when compared with a standard-higher dose and with a low dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is still lack of strong evidence for an optimal dose for clinical practice. The quality of trials suggests that an over estimate of effect is likely and we think this is most probably for the mid-range doses. One such dose (standard-lower dose range, 4-<6 mg/day) does seem optimal for clinical response and adverse effects. Weak evidence suggests that low doses (>==2-<4 mg/day) may be of value for people in their first episode of illness. High doses (>==10 mg/day) did not confer any advantage over any other dose ranges and caused more adverse effects, especially for movement disorders. Ultra low dose (<2 mg/day) seemed useless. We advise the use of dosages from low dose to standard-lower dose for different kinds of individual patients. Future trials should focus on specific populations, e.g. those in their first episode, with acute exacerbation, in relapse or refractory to treatment, and should also test the optimal dose of risperidone over a longer period of time and in the community.

The impact of professional and social network support on the burden of families of patients with schizophrenia in Italy

OBJECTIVE

(a) To explore burden related to caregiving and support received from professionals and social network in relatives of patients with schizophrenia in Northern, Central and Southern Italy; and (b) to test whether a higher level of family burden is associated with a lower level of professional and social network support.

METHOD

Seven hundred and nine patients with schizophrenia and their key-relatives were consecutively recruited in 30 Italian mental health departments. Data were collected on: (a) patients' clinical status and levels of disability; (b) relatives' burden, social and professional support; (c) interventions received by patients and their families.

RESULTS

Family burden was found lower in Northern Italy. However, after controlling for psychosocial interventions, differences in family burden among the three geographical areas disappeared. Family burden was associated with patients' levels of disability and manic/hostility symptoms, and with professional and social network support received by the family.

CONCLUSION

Professional and social network support represent crucial resources to reduce family burden in schizophrenia.