Ellie Brown

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness

BackgroundLittle is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.ResultsEighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants’ characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.ConclusionsDespite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.

An evaluation of primary care led dementia diagnostic services in Bristol.

BackgroundTypically people who go to see their GP with a memory problem will be initially assessed and those patients who seem to be at risk will be referred onto a memory clinic. The demographic forces mean that memory services will need to expand to meet demand. An alternative may be to expand the role of primary care in dementia diagnosis and care. The aim of this study was to contrast patient, family member and professional experience of primary and secondary (usual) care led memory services.MethodsA qualitative, participatory study. A topic guide was developed by the peer and professional panels. Data were collected through peer led interviews of people with dementia, their family members and health professionals.ResultsEleven (21%) of the 53 GP practices in Bristol offered primary care led dementia services. Three professional panels were held and were attended by 9 professionals; nine carers but no patients were involved in the three peer panels. These panels identified four main themes: GPs rarely make independent dementia diagnosis; GPs and memory nurses work together; patients and carers generally experience a high quality diagnostic service; an absence of post diagnostic support. Evidence relating to these themes was collected through a total of 46 participants took part; 23 (50%) in primary care and 23 (50%) in the memory service.ConclusionsPatients and carers were generally satisfied with either primary or secondary care led approaches to dementia diagnosis. Their major concern, shared with many health care professionals, was a lack of post diagnostic support.

Development of a measure of model fidelity for mental health Crisis Resolution Teams

BackgroundCrisis Resolution Teams (CRTs) provide short-term intensive home treatment to people experiencing mental health crisis. Trial evidence suggests CRTs can be effective at reducing hospital admissions and increasing satisfaction with acute care. When scaled up to national level however, CRT implementation and outcomes have been variable. We aimed to develop and test a fidelity scale to assess adherence to a model of best practice for CRTs, based on best available evidence.MethodsA concept mapping process was used to develop a CRT fidelity scale. Participants (n = 68) from a range of stakeholder groups prioritised and grouped statements (n = 72) about important components of the CRT model, generated from a literature review, national survey and qualitative interviews. These data were analysed using Ariadne software and the resultant cluster solution informed item selection for a CRT fidelity scale. Operational criteria and scoring anchor points were developed for each item. The CORE CRT fidelity scale was then piloted in 75 CRTs in the UK to assess the range of scores achieved and feasibility for use in a 1-day fidelity review process. Trained reviewers (n = 16) rated CRT service fidelity in a vignette exercise to test the scale’s inter-rater reliability.ResultsThere were high levels of agreement within and between stakeholder groups regarding the most important components of the CRT model. A 39-item measure of CRT model fidelity was developed. Piloting indicated that the scale was feasible for use to assess CRT model fidelity and had good face validity. The wide range of item scores and total scores across CRT services in the pilot demonstrate the measure can distinguish lower and higher fidelity services. Moderately good inter-rater reliability was found, with an estimated correlation between individual ratings of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.76).ConclusionsThe CORE CRT Fidelity Scale has been developed through a rigorous and systematic process. Promising initial testing indicates its value in assessing adherence to a model of CRT best practice and to support service improvement monitoring and planning. Further research is required to establish its psychometric properties and international applicability.

Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals

BackgroundTrial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized controlled trials published in key nursing journals that met criteria for timely registration.MethodsWe reviewed all RCTs published in three (two general, one mental health) nursing journals between August 2011 and September 2016. We classified the included trials as: 1. Not registered, 2. Registered but not reported in manuscript, 3. Registered retrospectively, 4. Registered prospectively (before the recruitment of the first subject into the trial). 5. Timely registration (as 4 but the trial identification number is reported in abstract).ResultsWe identified 135 trials published in the three included journals. The majority (n = 78, 58%) were not registered. Thirty-three (24%) were retrospectively registered. Of the 24 (18%) trials that were prospectively registered, 11 (8%) met the criteria for timely registration.ConclusionsThere is an unacceptable difference in rates of trial registration between leading medical and nursing journals. Concerted effort is required by nurse researchers, reviewers and journal editors to ensure that all trials are registered in a timely way.

Safety and Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) has been reported to be effective in the treatment of some psychiatric disorders. It remains uncertain, however, whether ACT is safe and effective in treating schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (e.g., psychosis). This protocol describes the methodology for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of ACT in the treatment of psychosis. The review will be guided by the standards set by the Cochrane Collaboration. We will search the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), EMCARE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials, whose arms are ACT and any comparator, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), and Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN), for unpublished and ongoing trials. The primary outcome will be any standard (or surrogate) measure of psychotic pathology. The meta-analysis will summarize short-term and long-term effects and different control conditions with or without treatment as usual or comparative to other interventions. In cases where heterogeneity is detected (via χ2 and I2), we will adopt the random effects model for computation.