Improving treatment of patients with psychosis in low-and-middle-income countries in Southeast Europe: Results from a hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial (IMPULSE)

Background In Southeast Europe (SEE) standard treatment of patients with psychosis is largely based on pharmacotherapy with psychosocial interventions rarely available. DIALOG+ is a digital psychosocial intervention designed to make routine care therapeutically effective. This trial simultaneously examined effectiveness of DIALOG+ versus standard care on clinical and social outcomes (Aim 1) and explored intervention fidelity (Aim 2). Methods A hybrid type II effectiveness–implementation, cluster-randomized trial was conducted in five SEE countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The intervention was offered to patients six times across 12 months instead of routine care. The outcomes were subjective quality of life (primary), clinical symptoms, satisfaction with services, and economic costs. Intervention fidelity was operationalized as adherence to the protocol in terms of frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Data were analyzed using multilevel regression. Results A total of 81 clinicians and 468 patients with psychosis were randomized to DIALOG+ or standard care. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. The average number of delivered sessions was 5.5 (SD = 2.3) across 12 months. Patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life (MANSA) at 6 months (p = 0.03). No difference was found for other outcomes at 6 months. Due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, 12-month data were not interpretable. Conclusions DIALOG+ improved subjective quality of life of individuals with psychosis at 6 months (after four sessions), albeit with small effect size. The intervention has the potential to contribute to holistic care of patients with psychosis

Psychological rumination and recovery from work in Intensive Care Professionals : associations with stress, burnout, depression, and health

Background The work demands of critical care can be a major cause of stress in intensive care unit (ICU) professionals and lead to poor health outcomes. In the process of recovery from work, psychological rumination is considered to be an important mediating variable in the relationship between work demands and health outcomes. This study aimed to extend our knowledge of the process by which ICU stressors and differing rumination styles are associated with burnout, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity among ICU professionals. Methods Ninety-six healthcare professionals (58 doctors and 38 nurses) who work in ICUs in the UK completed a questionnaire on ICU-related stressors, burnout, work-related rumination, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity. Results Significant associations between ICU stressors, affective rumination, burnout, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity were found. Longer working hours were also related to increased ICU stressors. Affective rumination (but not problem-solving pondering or distraction detachment) mediated the relationship between ICU stressors, burnout, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity, such that increased ICU stressors, and greater affective rumination, were associated with greater burnout, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity. No moderating effects were observed. Conclusions Longer working hours were associated with increased ICU stressors, and increased ICU stressors conferred greater burnout, depression and risk of psychiatric morbidity via increased affective rumination. The importance of screening healthcare practitioners within intensive care for depression, burnout and psychiatric morbidity has been highlighted. Future research should evaluate psychological interventions which target rumination style and could be made available to those at highest risk. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of delivering these interventions should also be considered

Implementing a digital mental health intervention for individuals with psychosis-a multi-country qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources. METHODS: Thirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants’ accounts. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers’ involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention’s implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists’ time constrains. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe – a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-021-03466-x