Helen Killaspy

A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people

BackgroundLesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people may be at higher risk of mental disorders than heterosexual people.MethodWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicide, suicidal ideation and deliberate self harm in LGB people. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library Database, the Web of Knowledge, the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, the Campbell Collaboration and grey literature databases for articles published January 1966 to April 2005. We also used Google and Google Scholar and contacted authors where necessary. We searched all terms related to homosexual, lesbian and bisexual people and all terms related to mental disorders, suicide, and deliberate self harm. We included papers on population based studies which contained concurrent heterosexual comparison groups and valid definition of sexual orientation and mental health outcomes.ResultsOf 13706 papers identified, 476 were initially selected and 28 (25 studies) met inclusion criteria. Only one study met all our four quality criteria and seven met three of these criteria. Data was extracted on 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non heterosexual people. Meta-analyses revealed a two fold excess in suicide attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual people [pooled risk ratio for lifetime risk 2.47 (CI 1.87, 3.28)]. The risk for depression and anxiety disorders (over a period of 12 months or a lifetime) on meta-analyses were at least 1.5 times higher in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (RR range 1.54–2.58) and alcohol and other substance dependence over 12 months was also 1.5 times higher (RR range 1.51–4.00). Results were similar in both sexes but meta analyses revealed that lesbian and bisexual women were particularly at risk of substance dependence (alcohol 12 months: RR 4.00, CI 2.85, 5.61; drug dependence: RR 3.50, CI 1.87, 6.53; any substance use disorder RR 3.42, CI 1.97–5.92), while lifetime prevalence of suicide attempt was especially high in gay and bisexual men (RR 4.28, CI 2.32, 7.88).ConclusionLGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.

The REACT study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatment in north London

Abstract Objective To compare outcomes of care from assertive community treatment teams with care by community mental health teams for people with serious mental illnesses. Design Non-blind randomised controlled trial. Setting Two inner London boroughs. Participants 251 men and women under the care of adult secondary mental health services with recent high use of inpatient care and difficulties engaging with community services. Interventions Treatment from assertive community treatment team (127 participants) or continuation of care from community mental health team (124 participants). Main outcome measures Primary outcome was inpatient bed use 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, social function, client satisfaction, and engagement with services. Results No significant differences were found in inpatient bed use (median difference 1, 95% confidence interval −16 to 38) or in clinical or social outcomes for the two treatment groups. Clients who received care from the assertive community treatment team seemed better engaged (adapted homeless engagement acceptance schedule: difference in means 1.1, 1.0 to 1.9), and those who agreed to be interviewed were more satisfied with services (adapted client satisfaction questionnaire: difference in means 7.14, 0.9 to 13.4). Conclusions Community mental health teams are able to support people with serious mental illnesses as effectively as assertive community treatment teams, but assertive community treatment may be better at engaging clients and may lead to greater satisfaction with services.

Group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial

Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of group art therapy for people with schizophrenia and to test whether any benefits exceed those of an active control treatment. Design Three arm, rater blinded, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Setting Secondary care services across 15 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 417 people aged 18 or over, who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and provided written informed consent to take part in the study. Interventions Participants, stratified by site, were randomised to 12 months of weekly group art therapy plus standard care, 12 months of weekly activity groups plus standard care, or standard care alone. Art therapy and activity groups had up to eight members and lasted for 90 minutes. In art therapy, members were given access to a range of art materials and encouraged to use these to express themselves freely. Members of activity groups were offered various activities that did not involve use of art or craft materials and were encouraged to collectively select those they wanted to pursue. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were global functioning, measured using the global assessment of functioning scale, and mental health symptoms, measured using the positive and negative syndrome scale, 24 months after randomisation. Main secondary outcomes were levels of group attendance, social functioning, and satisfaction with care at 12 and 24 months. Results 417 participants were assigned to either art therapy (n=140), activity groups (n=140), or standard care alone (n=137). Primary outcomes between the three study arms did not differ. The adjusted mean difference between art therapy and standard care at 24 months on the global assessment of functioning scale was −0.9 (95% confidence interval −3.8 to 2.1), and on the positive and negative syndrome scale was 0.7 (−3.1 to 4.6). Secondary outcomes did not differ between those referred to art therapy or those referred to standard care at 12 or 24 months. Conclusions Referring people with established schizophrenia to group art therapy as delivered in this trial did not improve global functioning, mental health, or other health related outcomes. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46150447.

What do mental health rehabilitation services do and what are they for? A national survey in England

Background: The specialty of rehabilitation is under represented in current national policy, current service provision is unclear and there are no guidelines on what constitutes a standard rehabilitation service. Aim: To carry out a national survey of rehabilitation services in order to describe current service provision and to formulate a consensus definition of the term “rehabilitation”. Method: A structured telephone survey was carried out with consultants in rehabilitation psychiatry or senior service managers in all Trusts in England. As well as information about their services, interviewees were asked to give a definition of the term “rehabilitation”. Results: A response rate of 89% (65/73 Trusts) was achieved constituting interviews with representatives from 93 local authority regions (75% consultants, 25% service managers). The majority (77%) had short term (length of stay up to 12 months) rehabilitation units with a mean 13 beds. There were no differences between urban and rural services in bed numbers. Most services had input from all members of a multidisciplinary team and where services had short and longer term units, staff tended to cover both. The majority (79%) had specific referral criteria, 42% had exclusion criteria and 85% carried out a preadmission assessment. Over half (56%) had a community rehabilitation team and in 29%, assertive outreach teams were considered part of the rehabilitation service. Two models of community rehabilitation service provision emerged and a consensus definition of “rehabilitation” was formulated. Conclusions: This is the first national survey of rehabilitation services which has allowed the description of current service provision in some detail as well as two models of community rehabilitation services. Declaration of Interest: None.

Successful engagement: a mixed methods study of the approaches of assertive community treatment and community mental health teams in the REACT trial

BackgroundThe only randomised trial of assertive community treatment (ACT) carried out in England (the “REACT” study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatment in North London) found no clinically significant advantage over usual care from community mental health teams (CMHTs). However, ACT clients were more satisfied and better engaged with services. To understand these findings better, we investigated the content of care and interventions offered to study participants.MethodQuantitative data were collected to compare team structures and processes. Qualitative interviews with care co-ordinators of 40 of the 251 REACT study participants (20 ACT, 20 CMHT clients) were carried out and thematic analysis was used to explore differences in the approaches of the two types of team.ResultsCMHTs scored low for ACT model fidelity and ACTTs scored high or ACT-like. All staff cited client engagement as their primary aim, but ACT approaches were less formal, more frequent and more successful than CMHTs’. Two aspects of ACT appeared important for engagement: small case loads and the team approach. Successful client engagement appeared to be associated with greater staff satisfaction.ConclusionsThe findings from this study assist in understanding why the ACT approach is more acceptable to clients deemed by CMHTs as “hard to engage”. The key elements of ACT that facilitate client engagement may not be easily replicated within CMHTs due to their larger, varied caseloads.

Group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia: a randomised controlled trial (MATISSE).

OBJECTIVE To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of referral to group art therapy plus standard care, compared with referral to an activity group plus standard care and standard care alone, among people with schizophrenia. DESIGN A three-arm, parallel group, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote telephone randomisation service using permuted blocks, stratified by study centre. SETTING Study participants were recruited from secondary care mental health and social services in four UK centres. PARTICIPANTS Potential participants were aged 18 years or over, had a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia, confirmed by an examination of case notes, and provided written informed consent. We excluded those who were unable to speak sufficient English to complete the baseline assessment, those with severe cognitive impairment and those already receiving arts therapy. INTERVENTIONS Group art therapy was delivered by registered art therapists according to nationally agreed standards. Groups had up to eight members, lasted for 90 minutes and ran for 12 months. Members were given access to a range of art materials and encouraged to use these to express themselves freely. Activity groups were designed to control for the non-specific effects of group art therapy. Group facilitators offered various activities and encouraged participants to collectively select those they wanted to pursue. Standard care involved follow-up from secondary care mental health services and the option of referral to other services, except arts therapies, as required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Our co-primary outcomes were global functioning (measured using the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale - GAF) and mental health symptoms (measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - PANSS) at 24 months. The main secondary outcomes were level of group attendance, social functioning, well-being, health-related quality of life, service utilisation and other costs measured 12 and 24 months after randomisation. RESULTS Four hundred and seventeen people were recruited, of whom 355 (85%) were followed up at 2 years. Eighty-six (61%) of those randomised to art therapy and 73 (52%) of those randomised to activity groups attended at least one group. No differences in primary outcomes were found between the three study arms. The adjusted mean difference between art therapy and standard care at 24 months was -0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to 2.1] on the GAF Scale and 0.7 (95% CI -3.1 to 4.6) on the PANSS Scale. Differences in secondary outcomes were not found, except that those referred to an activity group had fewer positive symptoms of schizophrenia at 24 months than those randomised to art therapy. Secondary analysis indicated that attendance at art therapy groups was not associated with improvements in global functioning or mental health. Although the total cost of the art therapy group was lower than the cost of the two comparison groups, referral to group art therapy did not appear to provide a cost-effective use of resources. CONCLUSIONS Referring people with established schizophrenia to group art therapy as delivered in this randomised trial does not appear to improve global functioning or mental health of patients or provide a more cost-effective use of resources than standard care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 46150447. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 8. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

The development of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC): a measure of best practice for facilities for people with longer term mental health problems

BackgroundDespite the progress over recent decades in developing community mental health services internationally, many people still receive treatment and care in institutional settings. Those most likely to reside longest in these facilities have the most complex mental health problems and are at most risk of potential abuses of care and exploitation. This study aimed to develop an international, standardised toolkit to assess the quality of care in longer term hospital and community based mental health units, including the degree to which human rights, social inclusion and autonomy are promoted.MethodThe domains of care included in the toolkit were identified from a systematic literature review, international expert Delphi exercise, and review of care standards in ten European countries. The draft toolkit comprised 154 questions for unit managers. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 202 units across ten countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation and development of community mental health services. Exploratory factor analysis was used to corroborate the allocation of items to domains. Feedback from those using the toolkit was collected about its usefulness and ease of completion.ResultsThe toolkit had excellent inter-rater reliability and few items with narrow spread of response. Unit managers found the content highly relevant and were able to complete it in around 90 minutes. Minimal refinement was required and the final version comprised 145 questions assessing seven domains of care.ConclusionsTriangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence directed the development of a robust and comprehensive international quality assessment toolkit for units in highly variable socioeconomic and political contexts.

Promoting recovery in long-term institutional mental health care: an international Delphi study

OBJECTIVE Service provision in psychiatric and social care is increasingly guided by recovery principles. However, little is known about the degree of consensus among stakeholders in diverse contexts on the components of care that most promote recovery. This study aimed to identify specific items of care that key stakeholders regard as most important in promoting recovery for people with longer-term mental health problems in institutional care, to measure consensus between and across stakeholder groups and countries, and to develop a conceptual framework of the most important domains of care. METHODS Ten European countries in various stages of deinstitutionalization participated in a series of conventional three-round iterative Delphi exercises. In each country individuals in four separate expert groups (service users, mental health professionals, caregivers, and advocates) identified components of care that they considered important to recovery and then rated their groups suggestions in terms of importance. Median and consensus ratings were measured. High-ranking items were grouped into domains. RESULTS A total of 4,098 separate items of care were proposed by the 40 participating groups. Eleven broad domains of care important for recovery were identified: social policy and human rights, social inclusion, self-management and autonomy, therapeutic interventions, governance, staffing, staff attitudes, institutional environment, postdischarge care, caregivers, and physical health care. Consensus between groups and countries was generally high, but some modest differences in priorities were noted. CONCLUSIONS The most consistently highly rated consensus domain was therapeutic interventions. Domains and components of care related to recovery principles were also viewed as important across stakeholder groups.

Mental health needs of clients of rehabilitation services: A survey in one Trust

Background: Little is known about the profile of current rehabilitation service users and how it might differ from the clients for whom these services were originally set up. Aim: To carry out a cross-sectional survey of rehabilitation service clients within two inner London boroughs and compare mental health needs with previous data from 1998. Method: All 141 clients of the four different types of rehabilitation services in Camden and Islington were included. Observer rated assessments of social function, substance misuse, mental health needs and challenging behaviours were made. Results: Most clients had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Around 7% had a co-morbid substance misuse problem. Over half had at least one challenging behaviour that was difficult to manage or occurred frequently. Clients in longer term hospital-based settings had the poorest social function and greatest number of needs. Compared to rehabilitation service users in 1998, clients had more unmet accommodation and money needs, but fewer unmet needs in the areas of psychological distress, psychotic symptoms and social relationships. Conclusions: Few differences in client characteristics were found with the exception of those in longer term, hospital-based facilities. Improvements in symptom management and social function may have created a need for more independent accommodation. Declaration of interest: None.

Psychometric properties of the Mental Health Recovery Star

BACKGROUND The Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) is a popular outcome measure rated collaboratively by staff and service users, but its psychometric properties are unknown. AIMS To assess the MHRSs acceptability, reliability and convergent validity. METHOD A total of 172 services users and 120 staff from in-patient and community services participated. Interrater reliability of staff-only ratings and test-retest reliability of staff-only and collaborative ratings were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Convergent validity between MHRS ratings and standardised measures of social functioning and recovery was assessed using Pearson correlation. The influence of collaboration on ratings was assessed using descriptive statistics and ICCs. RESULTS The MHRS was relatively quick and easy to use and had good test-retest reliability, but interrater reliability was inadequate. Collaborative ratings were slightly higher than staff-only ratings. Convergent validity suggests it assesses social function more than recovery. CONCLUSIONS The MHRS cannot be recommended as a routine clinical outcome tool but may facilitate collaborative care planning.