Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background In recent decades, mental health services have been challenged to offer evidence-based practices (EBPs) that are person-centered, human rights- and recovery-oriented. The Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program aims to promote recovery and enhance individuals’ ability to live well. Investigating the IMR program from the perspective of mental health practitioners is crucial to improve recovery-oriented care and optimize program delivery. Methods This study aimed to develop knowledge whether IMR, as an EBP, can function as a recovery-oriented practice (ROP) within secondary mental health care services. Seven focus groups were conducted, each consisting of two to eight mental health practitioners with different professional backgrounds and experiences. Altogether, 36 practitioners from five mental health hospitals and district psychiatric centers in Norway participated. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results The results show that IMR (a) actively facilitates the alignment of coping mechanisms with patients’ lives, and (b) emphasizes a recovery-oriented approach in the delivery of services. Mental health practitioners perceive IMR as inherently recovery-oriented. Although ROPs and EBPs are often considered to function in opposition, to the practitioners in our study they were neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive but complementary and with the potential to bring out the best in each other to support patients’ recovery processes. Conclusion IMR, as an evidence-based, recovery-oriented program, bridges psychiatry and mental health recovery. However, challenges arise from its illness-oriented approach and language, as well as its emphasis on individual recovery aspects. While IMR underscores the social aspects of recovery, it is essential to highlight the social, and societal factors in individuals’ recovery processes within the program.

Background Knowledge about the development of organizational readiness for implementation (ORI) is limited. ORI, referred to as the willingness and capacity of all relevant stakeholders to change practice, is critical for increasing the adoption rate of evidence-based practices and improving implementation outcomes. However, no methodology currently guides ORI’s enhancement or addresses differences in readiness needs across an organization. This study used the transtheoretical model (TTM) as a framework for classifying a well-established compilation of implementation strategies into three readiness stages: pre-contemplation, contemplation, and preparation. Methods A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus among a panel of purposefully selected research and field implementation experts. The Delphi process involved three rounds of online questionnaires. The third round also included a live video discussion to clarify definitions in an effort to increase consensus among experts. Results Of the 73 strategies reviewed, the experts identified 75% ( n = 55) as relevant for pre-implementation and reached a high-level agreement on the assignment of 7% ( n = 5) of the strategies to the pre-contemplation stage (ORI-1), 25% ( n = 18) to the contemplation stage (ORI-2), and 52% ( n = 38) to the preparation stage (ORI-3). Several strategies were identified as relevant to more than one stage. Conclusions Participating experts were able to reach high-level agreement on the relevance of specific sets of implementation strategies to each of the three ORI stages. The lowest number of strategies was assigned to ORI-1 and the highest number to ORI-3. Given the overlap of strategies across ORI stages, there is a need to better understand the specific utilization of such strategies at different stages. Future studies are needed to empirically evaluate the relevance and applicability of this expert-informed typology based on implementers’ experiences in the field.

Background: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery. Method Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis. Results A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment. Conclusion The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery. Trial registration Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01361698 ).

Introduction Many people with psychotic disorders experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In recent years, several trauma-focused therapies (TFTs), including cognitive restructuring (CR), prolonged exposure (PE), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) have been studied and found to be safe and effective in reducing PTSD symptoms in individuals with psychosis. However, studies were conducted in different countries, with varying inclusion criteria, therapy duration, control groups, and trial outcomes. RE.PROCESS will be the first study to compare the impact of CR, PE, and EMDR with a waiting list control condition within the same context. Methods and analysis This is the protocol of a pragmatic, single-blind, multicentre, superiority randomized controlled trial, in which CR, PE, and EMDR are compared to a waiting list control condition for TFT (WL) in a naturalistic treatment setting. Inclusion criteria are as follows: age ≥ 16 years; meeting full DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5), with a total CAPS score ≥ 23; and a psychotic disorder in the schizophrenia spectrum confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5). Participants ( N =200) will be randomly allocated to 16 sessions of one of the TFTs or WL, in addition to receiving treatment as usual (TAU) for psychosis. The primary objective is to compare the effects of CR, PE, and EMDR to WL on researcher-rated severity of PTSD symptoms over time from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary objectives are to examine these effects at the separate time-points (i.e., mid-treatment, post-treatment, and at 6-month follow-up) and to test the effects for clinician-rated presence of PTSD diagnosis, and self-rated severity of (complex) PTSD symptoms. Discussion This is the first RCT to directly compare the effects of CR, PE, and EMDR within the same context to TAU on PTSD symptoms in individuals with psychosis and PTSD. Secondary effects on clinical and functional outcomes will be investigated both directly after therapy and long term. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN56150327. Registered 18 June 2019.

Background Schizophrenia and related disorders are highly disabling and create substantial burdens for families, communities, and health care systems. Although pharmacological treatments can often lessen the psychotic symptoms that are a hallmark of schizophrenia, they do not lessen the social and cognitive deficits that create the greatest impediments to community engagement and functional recovery. This study builds on prior research on psychosocial rehabilitation by comparing the effectiveness of two treatments demonstrated as efficacious in improving social and community functioning, Cognitive Enhancement Therapy (CET) and a version of Social Skills Training (HOPES/SST). Methods The study uses a randomized cluster design in which a pair of clinicians at community- and hospital-based mental service centers deliver either CET or HOPES to at least one group of 6-8 eligible clients for 12 months. Clinicians are trained and then supervised weekly, with ongoing process measurement of treatment fidelity, attendance, satisfaction, and retention, and use of other services. Measures administered at baseline and at 6 and 12 months while in treatment, and then at 18 and 24 months after treatment include social adjustment, quality of life, social skills, positive and negative symptoms, and neuro- and social cognition. We hypothesize that CET will be associated with greater improvements than SST in both the primary outcome of community functioning and the secondary outcomes of neuro- and social cognition and social skills. Secondarily, we hypothesize that more cognitive impairment at baseline and younger age will predict more benefit from CET compared to HOPES. Discussion Resource shortages endemic in mental health services and exacerbated by the pandemic highlight the importance of identifying the most effective approach to improving social and community functioning. We aim to improve understanding of the impact of two efficacious psychosocial treatments and to improve clinicians’ ability to refer to both treatments the individuals who are most likely to benefit from them. We expect the result to be programmatic improvements that improve the magnitude and durability of gains in community functioning. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04321759 , registered March 25, 2020.

Neuropsychological functioning turns out to be a rate-limiting factor in psychiatry. However, little is known when comparing neuropsychological and psychosocial functioning in inpatients with schizophrenia or severe depression in their treatment pathways including add-on psychoeducation or the latter combined with cognitive behavioral therapy up to 2-year follow-up. To evaluate this question, we investigated these variables in two randomised controlled trials including 196 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia and 177 patients with major depression. Outcome measures were assessed in the hospital at pre- and posttreatment and following discharge until 2-year follow-up. We focused on neuropsychological and psychosocial functioning regarding its differences and changes over time in data of two pooled trials. There were significant time effects indicating gains in knowledge about the illness, short and medium-term memory (VLMT) and psychosocial functioning (GAF), however, the latter was the only variable showing a time x study/diagnosis interaction effect at 2-year follow-up, showing significant better outcome in depression compared to schizophrenia. Moderator analysis showed no changes in psychosocial and neuropsychological functioning in schizophrenia and in affective disorders due to age, duration of illness or sex. Looking at the rehospitalisation rates there were no significant differences between both disorders. Both groups treated with psychoeducation or a combination of psychoeducation and CBT improved in neuropsychological and psychosocial functioning as well as knowledge about the illness at 2-year follow-up, however, patients with major depression showed greater gains in psychosocial functioning compared to patients with schizophrenia. Possible implications of these findings were discussed.

This study evaluated the factor structure of the Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) in people with serious mental illness (SMI). Findings support the psychometric properties of the PCL-5 and the seven- symptom-clusters of PTSD in persons with SMI. The PCL-5 was found to be psychometrically sound among persons with psychiatric diagnoses receiving community mental health services, as evidenced by excellent internal consistency and convergent/divergent validity for both the 4-factor DSM-5 model and the 7-factor model of PTSD. PCL-5 is a self-report measure consisting of 20 items that are used to assess the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) according to the DSM-5. This study evaluated the factor structure of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) in people with serious mental illness. The sample in Study 1 included 536 participants with serious mental illness who were receiving supported employment services through community mental health agencies or supported housing programmes. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the fit of six different models of PTSD. Results indicated that Armour's Hybrid 7-factor model composed of re-experiencing, avoidance, dysphoria, dysphoric arousal, anxious arousal, negative affect, anhedonia, and externalizing behaviours demonstrated the best fit. Study 2 found support for convergent validity for PCL-5 among 132 participants who met criteria for PTSD. Findings provide support for the psychometric properties of the PCL-5 and the conceptualization of the 7-factor hybrid model and the 4-factor DSM-5 model of PTSD among persons living with serious mental illness.

Schizophrenia is a lifelong illness that requires long-term treatment and caregiving. Family psychoeducation (FP) has been shown to lessen caregiver burden, improve caregiver functioning, and improve outcomes in patients. However, the impact of FP delivered specifically to caregivers on patient outcomes has not been well explored, particularly for early schizophrenia. Furthermore, there is a lack of research examining the benefits of telehealth-based psychoeducation for caregivers on either patient or caregiver outcomes. The Family Intervention in Recent-Onset Schizophrenia Treatment (FIRST) study is a randomized controlled trial of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and their caregivers, which is designed to evaluate the effect of telehealth-based, caregiver-focused, study-provided psychoeducation versus usual care (UC) on patient treatment failure (TF). The impact of study-provided psychoeducation on caregiver burden is also investigated. Eligible patients and their designated caregivers were randomly assigned to either the study-provided psychoeducation (≤16 sessions of telehealth-based psychoeducation over 6 months) or UC group, stratified by antipsychotic treatment (paliperidone palmitate or oral antipsychotic). The major TF events (ie, psychiatric hospitalization or intervention, arrest or incarceration, and suicide attempts) were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline. A proportional means model using mean cumulative function was used to assess between-group differences in the mean cumulative number of TF events over 12 months. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire and 12-item Short Form Health Survey. A total of 148 pairs of participants were enrolled in the study, of whom 96 (64.9%) patients and 94 (63.5%) caregivers completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean number of sessions in the study-provided psychoeducation group was 7.7 (SD 5.9). No differences were observed between the study-provided psychoeducation and UC groups in patient outcomes (rates of TF: 70% vs 67%; P=.90) or measures of caregiver burden (assessment of caregiver distress and physical and mental health). However, post hoc analyses revealed lower relapse rates in patients who received paliperidone palmitate than in those who received oral antipsychotics at all time points. Although the FIRST study did not meet the primary end point, several key lessons were identified to inform future caregiver-focused, telehealth-based FP interventions. Lack of study-provided psychoeducation, focus on caregiver-only intervention, difficulties with enrollment, and caregiver-treatment team coordination may have affected the outcomes of the FIRST study. Key insights from the FIRST study suggest the potential importance of supporting sufficient caregiver engagement; communication between clinicians, patients, and family members regarding treatment plans; and solidifying the relationship between clinicians providing psychoeducation to the caregiver and patient treatment team. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02600741; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02600741.

Background: People with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses often lack access to evidence-based interventions, particularly interventions that target meaningful recovery outcomes such as social functioning and quality of life. Mobile technologies, including smartphone apps, have the potential to provide scalable support that places elements of evidence-based interventions at the palm of patients’ hands. Objective: We aim to develop a smartphone app—called Motivation and Skills Support—to provide targeted social goal support (eg, making new friends and improving existing relationships) for people with schizophrenia enrolled in a stand-alone open trial. Methods: In this paper, we presented preliminary outcomes of 31 participants who used the Motivation and Skills Support app for 8 weeks, including social functioning pre- to postintervention, and momentary reports of treatment targets (eg, social motivation and appraisals) during the intervention. Results: The findings suggest that the intervention improved self-reported social functioning from baseline to treatment termination, particularly in female participants. Gains were not maintained at the 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, increased social functioning was predicted by momentary reports of social appraisals, including perceived social competence and the extent to which social interactions were worth the effort. Conclusions: The implications of these findings and future directions for addressing social functioning in schizophrenia using mobile technology have been discussed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03404219; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03404219