Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of interpersonal community psychiatric treatment (ICPT) for people with long-term severe non-psychotic mental disorders: a multi-Centre randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Long-term community mental health treatment for non-psychotic disorder patients with severe mental illness (SMI) who are perceived as difficult by clinicians, is poorly developed and lacks a structured, goal-centred approach. This study compares (cost-)effectiveness of Interpersonal Community Psychiatric Treatment (ICPT) with Care As Usual (CAU) on quality of life and clinician perceived difficulty in the care for non-psychotic disorder SMI-patients. A multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical tria was conducted in which Community Mental Health Nurses (Clinicians) in three large community mental health services in the Netherlands were randomly allocated to providing either ICPT or CAU to included patients. A total of 56 clinicians were randomized, who treated a total of 93 patients (59 in ICPT-group and 34 in CAU-group).

Methods

Primary outcome measure is patient-perceived quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Secondary outcome measures include clinician-perceived difficulty, general mental health, treatment outcomes, illness management and recovery, therapeutic relationship, care needs and social network. Patients were assessed at baseline, during treatment (6 months), after treatment (12 months) and at 6 months follow-up (18 months). Linear mixed-effects models for repeated measurements were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between intervention and control group of patients over time on an intention to treat basis. Potential efficiency was investigated from a societal perspective. Economic evaluation was based on general principles of a cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcome measures for health economic evaluation, were costs, and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs).

Results

Half of the intended number of patients were recruited. There was no statistically significant treatment effect found in the MANSA (0.17, 95%-CI [- 0.058,0.431], p = 0.191). Treatment effects showed significant improvement in the Different Doctor-Patient Relationship Questionnaire-scores and a significant increase in the Illness Management and Recovery-scale Client-version scores). No effects of ICPT on societal and medical costs nor QALYs were found.

Conclusions

This is the first RCT to investigate the (cost)-effectiveness of ICPT. Compared with CAU, ICPT did not improve quality of life, but significantly reduced clinician-perceived difficulty, and increased subjective illness management and recovery. No effects on costs or QALY's were found.

Trial registration

NTR 3988 , registered 13 May 2013.

SUBMITTER: van Veen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8136177 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere have been no trials of task-shared care (TSC) using WHO's mental health Gap Action Programme for people with severe mental disorders (psychosis or affective disorder) in low-income or middle-income countries. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of TSC compared with enhanced specialist mental health care in rural Ethiopia.MethodsIn this single-blind, phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, participants had a confirmed diagnosis of a severe mental disorder, recruited from either the community or a local outpatient psychiatric clinic. The intervention was TSC, delivered by supervised, non-physician primary health care workers trained in the mental health Gap Action Programme and working with community health workers. The active comparison group was outpatient psychiatric nurse care augmented with community lay workers (PSY). Our primary endpoint was whether TSC would be non-inferior to PSY at 12 months for the primary outcome of clinical symptom severity using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Expanded version (BPRS-E; non-inferiority margin of 6 points). Randomisation was stratified by health facility using random permuted blocks. Independent clinicians allocated groups using sealed envelopes with concealment and outcome assessors and investigators were masked. We analysed the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat group and safety in the per-protocol group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02308956.FindingsWe recruited participants between March 13, 2015 and May 21, 2016. We randomly assigned 329 participants (111 female and 218 male) who were aged 25-72 years and were predominantly of Gurage (198 [60%]), Silte (58 [18%]), and Mareko (53 [16%]) ethnicity. Five participants were found to be ineligible after randomisation, giving a modified intention-to-treat sample of 324. Of these, 12-month assessments were completed in 155 (98%) of 158 in the TSC group and in 158 (95%) of 166 in the PSY group. For the primary outcome, there was no evidence of inferiority of TSC compared with PSY. The mean BPRS-E score was 27·7 (SD 4·7) for TSC and 27·8 (SD 4·6) for PSY, with an adjusted mean difference of 0·06 (90% CI -0·80 to 0·89). Per-protocol analyses (n=291) were similar. There were 47 serious adverse events (18 in the TSC group, 29 in the PSY group), affecting 28 participants. These included 17 episodes of perpetrated violence and seven episodes of violent victimisation leading to injury, ten suicide attempts, six hospital admissions for physical health conditions, four psychiatric admissions, and three deaths (one in the TSC group, two in the PSY group). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TSC indicated lower cost of -US$299·82 (95% CI -454·95 to -144·69) per unit increase in BPRS-E scores from a health care sector perspective at 12 months.InterpretationWHO's mental health Gap Action Programme for people with severe mental disorders is as cost-effective as existing specialist models of care and can be implemented effectively and safely by supervised non-specialists in resource-poor settings.FundingUS National Institute of Mental Health.

Project description:Objective: The resource group method intends to promote patients' agency and self-management and to organize meaningful partnerships between patients and their informal and formal support systems. The aim of this study was to enhance the understanding of interpersonal dynamics that arise within resource groups for people with severe mental illness. Insight into these unfolding processes would enable improved implementation of the resource group method so that it contributes to establishing a positive social environment, which can lead to more enduring recovery. Methodology: We performed a narrative analysis of transcripts and field notes obtained in a longitudinal, qualitative study on the resource group method. The stories of four different resource groups were reconstructed and analyzed in depth. Data included a total of 36 interviews (with patients, significant others, and mental health professionals) and 18 observations of resource group meetings. Results: The degree to which the resource group method actually contributes to recovery was based on the extent to which the existing roles of and patterns between the patient and his/her resource group members were altered. Breaking through old patterns of inequality and the joint search for a new balance in relationships proved to be crucial processes for establishing an empowering resource group. The four cases showed that it takes time, patience, and small steps back and forth to overcome the struggles and fears related to finding new ways of relating to each other. An honest and reflective atmosphere in which all participants are encouraged to participate and be curious about themselves and each other is essential for changes in interpersonal dynamics to emerge. Such changes pave the way for individuals with SMI to find their own voices and pursue their unique recovery journeys. Conclusions: The functioning of the resource group and the ability of the involved members to respond in new ways are important when working toward the patient's recovery goals. The resource group method should therefore not be considered an intervention to organize informal support for the patient, but a platform to expose and adjust the functioning of the patient's social network as a whole.