Eleanor Clarke

Supporting recovery in patients with psychosis through care by community-based adult mental health teams (REFOCUS): a multisite, cluster, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND Mental health policy in many countries is oriented around recovery, but the evidence base for service-level recovery-promotion interventions is lacking. METHODS We did a cluster, randomised, controlled trial in two National Health Service Trusts in England. REFOCUS is a 1-year team-level intervention targeting staff behaviour to increase focus on values, preferences, strengths, and goals of patients with psychosis, and staff-patient relationships, through coaching and partnership. Between April, 2011, and May, 2012, community-based adult mental health teams were randomly allocated to provide usual treatment plus REFOCUS or usual treatment alone (control). Baseline and 1-year follow-up outcomes were assessed in randomly selected patients. The primary outcome was recovery and was assessed with the Questionnaire about Processes of Recovery (QPR). We also calculated overall service costs. We used multiple imputation to estimate missing data, and the imputation model captured clustering at the team level. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN02507940. FINDINGS 14 teams were included in the REFOCUS group and 13 in the control group. Outcomes were assessed in 403 patients (88% of the target sample) at baseline and in 297 at 1 year. Mean QPR total scores did not differ between the two groups (REFOCUS group 40·6 [SD 10·1] vs control 40·0 [10·2], adjusted difference 0·68, 95% CI -1·7 to 3·1, p=0·58). High team participation was associated with higher staff-rated scores for recovery-promotion behaviour change (adjusted difference -0·4, 95% CI -0·7 to -0·2, p=0·001) and patient-rated QPR interpersonal scores (-1·6, -2·7 to -0·5, p=0·005) at follow-up than low participation. Patients treated in the REFOCUS group incurred £1062 (95% CI -1103 to 3017) lower adjusted costs than those in the control group. INTERPRETATION Although the primary endpoint was negative, supporting recovery might, from the staff perspective, improve functioning and reduce needs. Implementation of REFOCUS could increase staff recovery-promotion behaviours and improve patient-rated recovery. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.

Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice

Decision‐making between mental health clinicians and patients is under‐researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision‐making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision‐making style preference.

The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS)

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) – with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) – for use in mental health services.MethodsAn English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich.ResultsAfter appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff.ConclusionsCDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments.Trial registrationISRCTN75841675.

Helping Alliance and Unmet Needs in Routine Care of People With Severe Mental Illness Across Europe: A Prospective Longitudinal Multicenter Study

Abstract The helping alliance (HA) refers to the collaborative bond between patient and therapist, including shared goals and tasks. People with severe mental illness have a complex mixture of clinical and social needs. Using mixed-effects regression, this study examined in 588 people with severe mental illness whether an increase in the HA is associated with fewer unmet needs over time, and whether change in the HA precedes change in unmet needs. It was found that a reduction in unmet needs was slower in patients with higher HA (B = 0.04, p < 0.0001) only for patient-rated measures. Improvement in both patient-rated and staff-rated HA over time was associated with fewer subsequent patient-rated (B = −0.10, p < 0.0001) and staff-rated (B = −0.08, p = 0.0175) unmet needs. With positive changes in the HA preceding fewer unmet needs, findings provide further evidence for a causal relationship between alliance and outcome in the treatment of people with severe mental illness.