Care for patients with severe mental illness: the general practitioner's role perspective

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) experience distress and disabilities in several aspects of life, and they have a higher risk of somatic co-morbidity. Both patients and their family members need the support of an easily accessible primary care system. The willingness of general practitioners and the impeding factors for them to participate in providing care for patients with severe mental illness in the acute and the chronic or residual phase were explored. METHODS: A questionnaire survey of a sample of Dutch general practitioners spread over the Netherlands was carried out. This comprised 20 questions on the GP's 'Opinion and Task Perspective', 19 questions on 'Treatment and Experiences', and 27 questions on 'Characteristics of the General Practitioner and the Practice Organisation'. RESULTS: 186 general practitioners distributed over urban areas (49%), urbanised rural areas (38%) and rural areas (15%) of the Netherlands participated. The findings were as follows: GPs currently considered themselves as the first contact in the acute psychotic phase. In the chronic or residual phase GPs saw their core task as to diagnose and treat somatic co-morbidity. A majority would be willing to monitor the general health of these patients as well. It appeared that GP trainers and GPs with a smaller practice setting made follow-up appointments and were willing to monitor the self-care of patients with SMI more often than GPs with larger practices.GPs also saw their role as giving support and information to the patient's family.However, they felt a need for recognition of their competencies when working with mental health care specialists. CONCLUSION: GPs were willing to participate in providing care for patients with SMI. They considered themselves responsible for psychotic emergency cases, for monitoring physical health in the chronic phase, and for supporting the relatives of psychotic patients

The effects of lifestyle interventions on (long-term) weight management, cardiometabolic risk and depressive symptoms in people with psychotic disorders:A meta-analysis

AIMS: The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of lifestyle interventions on bodyweight and other cardiometabolic risk factors in people with psychotic disorders. Additionally, the long-term effects on body weight and the effects on depressive symptoms were examined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared lifestyle interventions to control conditions in patients with psychotic disorders. Lifestyle interventions were aimed at weight loss or weight gain prevention, and the study outcomes included bodyweight or metabolic parameters. RESULTS: The search resulted in 25 RCTs -only 4 were considered high quality- showing an overall effect of lifestyle interventions on bodyweight (effect size (ES)  =  -0.63, p<0.0001). Lifestyle interventions were effective in both weight loss (ES =  -0.52, p<0.0001) and weight-gain-prevention (ES =  -0.84, p = 0.0002). There were significant long-term effects, two to six months post-intervention, for both weight-gain-prevention interventions (ES =  -0.85, p = 0.0002) and weight loss studies (ES =  -0.46, p = 0.02). Up to ten studies reported on cardiometabolic risk factors and showed that lifestyle interventions led to significant improvements in waist circumference, triglycerides, fasting glucose and insulin. No significant effects were found for blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Four studies reported on depressive symptoms and showed a significant effect (ES =  -0.95, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lifestyle interventions are effective in treating and preventing obesity, and in reducing cardiometabolic risk factors. However, the quality of the studies leaves much to be desired

Novel antipsychotics in bipolar and schizoaffective mania

Objective: Novel antipsychotics are increasingly used in the treatment of bipolar and schizoaffective mania. This paper presents an overview of the controlled studies in this field. Method: Using cross-references, a computerized search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE psychiatry covering the period 1990-2002. Results: Olanzapine and risperidone, added to mood stabilizers, and olanzapine as monotherapy enjoy the most evidential support in terms of efficacy and side-effect profile for their use in acute bipolar mania. The use of modern antipsychotics in bipolar prophylaxis and in both the short- and long-term treatment of schizomania has not been widely studied yet. Conclusion: More controlled trials are still needed comparing modern antipsychotics as monotherapy and adjunctive to mood stabilizers with conventional antipsychotics, lithium, anticonvulsants and with each other in short-term and, especially, maintenance treatment of (schizo)mania. Partly based on controlled studies, olanzapine, risperidone and other modern antipsychotics could become preferable for these indications

Stability and change in needs of patients with schizophrenic disorders:a 15- and 17-year follow-up from first onset of psychosis, and a comparison between 'objective' and 'subjective' assessments of needs for care

Need for care was studied in a Dutch incidence cohort of patients with schizophrenic disorders 15 and 17 years from first onset of psychosis. Long-term course of the disorders varied from complete remission and full community participation to chronic psychosis and longterm hospital stay. Fifty patients were assessed twice with the Needs For Care Assessment Schedule (NFCAS, Brewin and Wing 1989); at the latter follow-up an assessment was also made using the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN, Phelan et al. 1995). The NFCAS is an investigator-or professional-based instrument which provides an 'objective' assessment of needs. Need for care was recorded in 22 areas of clinical and social functioning. Comparison of the two assessments over a 2-year period demonstrated a high stability on the individual items (mean 88%, mostly concerning the absence of a problem twice), but did not show the expected stability of need status among this group of patients with chronic disorders. One in five patients (22%) had no needs at all on both occasions and 56% of the patients showed a change in needs. There was more negative than positive change: 28% suffered from new unmet needs at the 17-year follow-up, while only 12% had improved their status to no needs. About one-third (36%) had at least one unmet need, mostly regarding psychotic symptoms, dyskinesia or underactivity. The CAN provides a 'subjective' assessment of needs according to the view of patients themselves. The problems patients reported most commonly were in the areas of day-time activities, social relationships and information on their condition and treatment, for all which they asked for more help than they received. This patient-based instrument produces slightly higher numbers of problems and unmet needs, and a lower ratio between met and unmet needs. There is an overall percentage of 21% of disagreement between patient and investigator view regarding the unmet need status. Agreement between the two instruments on the nature of the problems with unmet needs was lacking altogether