Dataset Information

Psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer workers among people with mental illness: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial (DAiP study).

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of psychiatric advance directives (PAD) facilitated by peer workers (PW-PAD) in the management of patients with mental disorders in France.

Methods

In a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorders, who were compulsorily hospitalized in the past 12 months, to either fill out a PAD form and meet a peer worker for facilitation or receive usual care. We assessed differences in societal costs in euros (€) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a year-long follow-up to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the PW-PAD strategy. We conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our results.

Results

Among the 394 randomized participants, 196 were assigned to the PW-PAD group and 198 to the control group. Psychiatric inpatient costs were lower in the PW-PAD group than the control group (relative risk, -0.22; 95% confidence interval, [-0.33 to -0.11]; P < 0.001), and 1-year cumulative savings were obtained for the PW-PAD group (mean difference, -€4,286 [-4,711 to -4,020]). Twelve months after PW-PAD implementation, we observed improved health utilities (difference, 0.040 [0.003-0.077]; P = 0.032). Three deaths occurred. QALYs were higher in the PW-PAD group (difference, 0.045 [0.040-0.046]). In all sensitivity analyses, taking into account sampling uncertainty and unit variable variation, PW-PAD was likely to remain a cost-effective use of resources.

Conclusion

PW-PAD was strictly dominant, that is, less expensive and more effective compared with usual care for people living with mental illness.

SUBMITTER: Loubiere S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10130836 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer workers among people with mental illness: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial (DAiP study).

Loubière S S Loundou A A Auquier P P Tinland A A

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 20230425

<h4>Aims</h4>We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of psychiatric advance directives (PAD) facilitated by peer workers (PW-PAD) in the management of patients with mental disorders in France.<h4>Methods</h4>In a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorders, who were compulsorily hospitalized in the past 12 m ...[more]

PMID: 37096868

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceReducing the use of coercion in mental health care is crucial from a human rights and public health perspective. Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are promising tools that may reduce compulsory admissions. Assessments of PADs have included facilitation by health care agents but not facilitation by peer workers.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of PADs facilitated by peer workers (PW-PAD) in people with mental disorders.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 7 French mental health facilities. Adults with a DSM-5 diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who had a compulsory admission in the past 12 months and the capacity to consent were enrolled between January 2019 and June 2020 and followed up for 12 months.InterventionsThe PW-PAD group was invited to fill out a PAD form and meet a peer worker who was trained to assist in completing and sharing the form with relatives and psychiatrists.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the rate of compulsory admission at 12 months after randomization. The overall psychiatric admission rate, therapeutic alliance, quality of life, mental health symptoms, empowerment, and recovery outcomes were also investigated.ResultsAmong 394 allocated participants (median age, 39 years; 39.3% female; 45% with schizophrenia, 36% bipolar I disorder, and 19% schizoaffective disorder), 196 were assigned to the PW-PAD group and 198 to the control group. In the PW-PAD group, 27.0% had compulsory admissions compared with 39.9% in the control group (risk difference, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.04; P = .007). No significant differences were found in the rate of overall admissions, therapeutic alliance score, and quality of life. Participants in the PW-PAD group exhibited fewer symptoms (effect size, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.00), greater empowerment (effect size, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.50), and a higher recovery score (effect size, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.65), compared with those in the control group.Conclusions and relevancePeer worker-facilitated PADs are effective in decreasing compulsory hospital admissions and increasing some mental health outcomes (self-perceived symptoms, empowerment, and recovery). Involving peer workers in the completion of PADs supports the current shift of mental health care from substitute decision-making to supported decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03630822.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. 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 (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital is rising despite serious ethical concerns. Among measures to reduce compulsory admissions, Psychiatric Advance Directives (PAD) are the most promising, with intensive PAD (i.e. facilitated and shared) being the most effective. The aim of the study is to experiment Psychiatric Advance Directives in France. METHODS:A multicentre randomized controlled trial and qualitative approach conducted from January 2019 to January 2021 with intent-to-treat analysis. SETTING:Seven hospitals in three French cities: Lyon, Marseille, and Paris. Research assistants meet each participant at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after inclusion for face-to-face interviews. PARTICIPANTS:400 persons with a DSM-5 diagnosis of bipolar I disorder (BP1), schizophrenia (SCZ), or schizoaffective disorders (SCZaff), compulsorily admitted to hospital within the last 12 months, with capacity to consent (MacCAT-CR), over 18 years old, and able to understand French. INTERVENTIONS:The experimental group (PAD) (expected n = 200) is invited to fill in a document describing their crisis plan and their wishes in case of loss of mental capacity. Participants meet a facilitator, who is a peer support worker specially trained to help them. They are invited to nominate a healthcare agent, and to share the document with them, as well as with their psychiatrist. The Usual Care (UC) group (expected n = 200) receives routine care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome is the rate of compulsory admissions to hospital during the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (S-QoL18), satisfaction (CSQ8), therapeutic alliance (4-PAS), mental health symptoms (MCSI), awareness of disorders (SUMD), severity of disease (ICG), empowerment (ES), recovery (RAS), and overall costs. DISCUSSION:Implication of peer support workers in PAD, potential barriers of supported-decision making, methodological issues of evaluating complex interventions, evidence-based policy making, and the importance of qualitative evaluation in the context of constraint are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03630822. Registered 14th August 2018.

Project description:IntroductionOne of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent "QuitLink" randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary.MethodsPeople were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches.ResultsOnly 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant-~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant).DiscussionPeer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research.Clinical trial registrationThe trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Dataset Information

Psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer workers among people with mental illness: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial (DAiP study).

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer workers among people with mental illness: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial (DAiP study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets