BACKGROUND: Inpatient treatment is an expensive way of caring for people with acute psychiatric disorders. It has been proposed that many of those currently treated as inpatients could be cared for in acute psychiatric day hospitals.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of day hospital versus inpatient care for people with acute psychiatric disorders.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2010) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We approached trialists to identify unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of day hospital versus inpatient care, for people with acute psychiatric disorders. Studies were ineligible if a majority of participants were under 18 or over 65, or had a primary diagnosis of substance abuse or organic brain disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and cross-checked data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We calculated weighted or standardised means for continuous data. Day hospital trials tend to present similar outcomes in slightly different formats, making it difficult to synthesise data. We therefore sought individual patient data so that we could re-analyse outcomes in a common format.
MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (involving 2685 people) met the inclusion criteria. We obtained individual patient data for four trials (involving 646 people). We found no difference in the number lost to follow-up by one year between day hospital care and inpatient care (5 RCTs, n = 1694, RR 0.94 CI 0.82 to 1.08). There is moderate evidence that the duration of index admission is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (4 RCTs, n = 1582, WMD 27.47 CI 3.96 to 50.98). There is very low evidence that the duration of day patient care (adjusted days/month) is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (3 RCTs, n = 265, WMD 2.34 days/month CI 1.97 to 2.70). There is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for the being readmitted to in/day patient care after discharge (5 RCTs, n = 667, RR 0.91 CI 0.72 to 1.15). It is likely that there is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for being unemployed at the end of the study (1 RCT, n = 179, RR 0.88 CI 0.66 to 1.19), for quality of life (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.01 CI -0.13 to 0.15) or for treatment satisfaction (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.06 CI -0.18 to 0.30).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Caring for people in acute day hospitals is as effective as inpatient care in treating acutely ill psychiatric patients. However, further data are still needed on the cost effectiveness of day hospitals.
BACKGROUND: Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).
Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT).
MAIN RESULTS: Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.
The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).
Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.
AIM: This study is a report of a systematic review to assess current evidence for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for reducing substance use, as well as improving mental state and encouraging treatment retention, among people with dual diagnosis. BACKGROUND: Substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness is common and of concern because of its many adverse consequences and lack of evidence for effective psychosocial interventions. Data sources: Several electronic databases were searched to identify studies published between January 1990 and February 2008. Additional searches were conducted by means of reference lists and contact with authors. Review methods: Results from studies using meta-analysis, randomized and nonrandomized trials assessing any psychosocial intervention for people with a severe mental illness and substance misuse were included. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included: one systematic review with meta-analysis, 30 randomized controlled trials and 23 non-experimental studies. Although some inconsistencies were apparent, results showed that motivational interviewing had the most quality evidence for reducing substance use over the short term and, when combined with cognitive behavioural therapy, improvements in mental state were also apparent. Cognitive behavioural therapy alone showed little consistent support. Support was found for long-term integrated residential programmes; however, the evidence is of lesser quality. Contingency management shows promise, but there were few studies assessing this intervention. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the importance of motivational interviewing in psychiatric settings for the reduction of substance use, at least in the short term. Further quality research should target particular diagnoses and substance use, as some interventions may work better for some subgroups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: This review considers the use of day hospitals as an alternative to outpatient care. Two types of day hospital are covered by the review: 'day treatment programmes' and 'transitional' day hospitals. Day treatment programmes offer more intense treatment for people who have failed to respond to outpatient care. Transitional day hospitals offer time-limited care to people who have just been discharged from inpatient care. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of day hospital care as an alternative to continuing outpatient care for people with schizophrenia and and other similar severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2009) and references of all identified studies for further citations. If necessary, we also contacted authors of trials for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing day hospital care with outpatient care for those with schizophrenia and other similar severe mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted and cross-checked data independently. We analysed dichotomous data using fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI). If continuous data were included, we analysed this data using the random-effects weighted mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four relevant trials all dating from before 1986 (total n=309 participants); all but one of which (n=37) evaluated day treatment centres. Across time less people allocated to day hospital care tend to be admitted to hospital (beyond one year: n=242, 2 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.56 to 0.89 day treatment centres) but data are heterogeneous (I(2) =74% P=0.05) and should not be taken into account. Data on time spent as an inpatient seem to support this finding but are poorly reported. We found no clear difference between day hospital and outpatient care for the outcome of 'lost to follow up' (at six months: n=147, 3 RCTs, RR 0.97 CI 0.48 to 1.95; at 12 months: n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.97 CI 0.48 to 1.95 day treatment centres / transitional day hospital). Scale derived findings on social functioning are equivocal (SAS: n=37, 1 RCT, MD 0.36 CI -0.07 to 0.79 transitional day hospital) but there was some suggestion from small studies that day hospital care may decrease the risk of unemployment (at 12 months: n=80, 1 RCT, RR 0.86 CI 0.69 to 1.06 day treatment centre). Different measures of mental state showed no convincing effect (Symptom Check List: n=30, 1 RCT, MD -90 0.31 CI -0.20 to 0.82 day treatment centre). Poorly reported economic data from decades ago suggested that day hospitals were more costly to establish and run than outpatient care but took no account of other costs such as inpatient stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited and dated. Day hospital care may help avoid inpatient care but data are lacking on missing on a raft of outcomes that are now considered important, such as quality of life, satisfaction, healthy days, and cost.
While the efficacy of the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model has been well researched in the areas of hospitalization rates, there is significantly less research on outcomes affecting quality of life, community living, and, in particular, employment. This article examines vocational outcomes associated with ACT through a comprehensive examination of the literature published between 1990 and 2003. Results show that employment outcomes are variable across studies but that ACT generally shows superior rates of employment than standard care. The presence of a vocational specialist may account for some of these variations.
BACKGROUND: The number of people with severe mental illness who receive treatment whilst living at home has increased greatly over the last 30 years. Day centres and day hospitals frequently supplement this treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-medical day centre care for people with severe mental illness.
SEARCH METHODS: We updated our search in September 2005. All databases and searches are detailed in the body of the text.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We would have included all randomised controlled trials where seriously mentally ill people were allocated to non-medical day centre care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, it had been hoped to estimate the fixed effects Relative Risk (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat statistic (NNT). Analysis was to have been by intention-to-treat. Normal continuous data were to have been summated using the weighted mean difference (WMD) and scale data presented only for those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality.
MAIN RESULTS: Electronic searches identified over 300 citations but none were relevant to this review. We found no trials of non-medical day centres.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We feel that the inclusion of any studies less rigorous than randomised trials would result in misleading findings and that it is not unreasonable to expect well designed, conducted and reported randomised controlled trials of day centre care. More precise nomenclature would greatly help identify relevant work. At present non-randomised comparative studies give conflicting messages about the roles provided by day centres and the clinical and social needs they are able to meet. It is therefore probably best that people with serious mental illness and their carers, if given the choice, take a pragmatic decision on which type of unit best meets their needs. There is a clear need for randomised controlled trials of day centre care compared to other forms of day care, and when resources are limited, day centre care within the context of a pragmatic randomised trial may be the only way of ensuring equity of provision.
BACKGROUND: Mother and baby units (MBUs) are recommended, in the UK, as an optimal site for treating post partum psychoses. Naturalistic studies suggest poor outcomes for mothers and their children if admission is needed during the first year after birth, but the evidence for the effectiveness of MBUs in addressing the problems faced by both mothers with mental illness and their babies is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of mother and baby units for mothers with schizophrenia or psychoses needing admission during the first year after giving birth, and their children, in comparison to standard care on a ward without a mother and baby unit.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2006).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing placement on a mother and baby unit compared to any other standard care without attachment to such a unit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: If data were available we would have independently extracted data and analysed on an intention-to treat basis; calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data using a random effects model, and where possible calculated the number needed to treat (NNT); calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS: Unfortunately, we did not find any relevant studies to include. One non-randomised trial, published in 1961, suggested beneficial effects for those admitted to mother and baby units. For the experimental group, more women were able to care for their baby on their own and experienced fewer early relapses on their return home compared with standard care. Care practices for people with schizophrenia have changed dramatically over the past 40 years and a sensitively designed pragmatic trial is possible and justified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mother and bay units are reportedly common in the UK but less common in other countries and rare or non-existent in the developing world. However, there does not appear to be any trial-based evidence for the effectiveness of these units. This lack of data is of concern as descriptive studies have found poor outcomes such as anxious attachment and poor development for children of mothers with schizophrenia and a greater risk of the children being placed under supervised or foster care. Effective care of both mothers and babies during this critical time may be crucial to prevent poor clinical and parenting outcomes. Good, relevant research is urgently needed.
BACKGROUND: As international healthcare policy has moved away from treating people with severe mental illness in large inpatient psychiatric institutions, beds for people with acute psychiatric disorders are being established in specialised psychiatric units in general hospitals. In developing countries, however, limited resources mean that it is not always possible to provide discrete psychiatric units, either in general hospitals or in the community. An alternative model of admission, used in the Caribbean, is to treat the person with acute psychosis in a general hospital ward.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes for people with acute psychosis who have been admitted to open medical wards with those admitted to conventional psychiatric units.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register (April 2007). This register is compiled from searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Sociofile, and many conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We would have included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised trials, allocating anyone thought to be suffering from an acute psychotic episode to either acute management on general medical wards, or acute management in a specialist psychiatric unit. The primary outcomes of interest were length of stay in hospital and relapse.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we would have calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based using a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: We didnt identify any relevant randomised trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The Caribbean practice of treating people with severe mental illness on general medical wards has been influenced by socio-economic factors rather than evidence from randomised trials. This practice affords an opportunity for a well designed, well conducted and reported randomised trial, now impossible in many other settings.
