Can General Practitioners manage mental disorders in primary care? A partially randomised, pragmatic, cluster trial

BackgroundFor a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care.MethodsIn this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment.All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months.Results153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY.ConclusionGeneral Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT0270049

Can General Practitioners manage mental disorders in primary care? A partially randomised, pragmatic, cluster trial.

BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490

Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4 ). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. METHODS: Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016

M.I.C.E-Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. METHODS: In total, 334 participants aged 3-18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197 . Registered on 25 February 2019

A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT.

BACKGROUND: Behaviour problems emerge early in childhood and place children at risk for later psychopathology. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in young children. DESIGN: A pragmatic, assessor-blinded, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Health visiting services in six NHS trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 at-risk children aged 12-36 months and their parents/caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Families were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to six sessions of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) plus usual care or usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms, which is a structured interview of behaviour symptoms. Secondary outcomes included caregiver-reported total problems on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The intervention effect was estimated using linear regression. Health and social care service use was recorded using the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule and cost-effectiveness was explored using the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 300 families were randomised: 151 to VIPP-SD plus usual care and 149 to usual care alone. Follow-up data were available for 286 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 146) participants and 282 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 142) participants at 5 and 24 months, respectively. At the post-treatment (primary outcome) follow-up, a group difference of 2.03 on Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 4.01; p = 0.04) indicated a positive treatment effect on behaviour problems (Cohen's d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.40). The effect was strongest for children's conduct [1.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.78; p = 0.007 (d = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.51)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.29, 95% confidence interval -1.06 to 1.65; p = 0.67 (d = 0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to 0.27)]. The Child Behaviour Checklist [3.24, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 6.54; p = 0.05 (d = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.31)] and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [0.93, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 1.9; p = 0.06 (d = 0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.36)] demonstrated similar positive treatment effects to those found for the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. At 24 months, the group difference on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms was 1.73 [95% confidence interval -0.24 to 3.71; p = 0.08 (d = 0.17, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.37)]; the effect remained strongest for conduct [1.07, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 2.20; p = 0.06 (d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.42)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.62, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 1.84; p = 0.32 (d = 0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.30)], with little evidence of an effect on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The primary economic analysis showed better outcomes in the VIPP-SD group at 24 months, but also higher costs than the usual-care group (adjusted mean difference £1450, 95% confidence interval £619 to £2281). No treatment- or trial-related adverse events were reported. The probability of VIPP-SD being cost-effective compared with usual care at the 24-month follow-up increased as willingness to pay for improvements on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms increased, with VIPP-SD having the higher probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values above £800 per 1-point improvement on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. LIMITATIONS: The proportion of participants with graduate-level qualifications was higher than among the general public. CONCLUSIONS: VIPP-SD is effective in reducing behaviour problems in young children when delivered by health visiting teams. Most of the effect of VIPP-SD appears to be retained over 24 months. However, we can be less certain about its value for money. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58327365. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.NIHR HTA programm

Lamotrigine for people with borderline personality disorder: a RCT

Background: No drug treatments are currently licensed for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite this, people with this condition are frequently prescribed psychotropic medications and often with considerable polypharmacy. Preliminary studies have indicated that mood stabilisers may be of benefit to people with BPD. Objective: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine for people with BPD. Design: A two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled individually randomised trial of lamotrigine versus placebo. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote web-based service using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre, the severity of personality disorder and the extent of hypomanic symptoms. Setting: Secondary care NHS mental health services in six centres in England. Participants: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, meet diagnostic criteria for BPD and provide written informed consent. We excluded people with coexisting psychosis or bipolar affective disorder, those already taking a mood stabiliser, those who spoke insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who were pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Interventions: Up to 200 mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were prescribed up to 400 mg of trial medication per day. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 12, 24 and 52 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was the total score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment and adverse events. Higher scores on all measures indicate poorer outcomes. Results: Between July 2013 and October 2015 we randomised 276 participants, of whom 195 (70.6%) were followed up 52 weeks later. At 52 weeks, 49 (36%) of those participants prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. At 52 weeks, the mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 [standard deviation (SD) 6.6] among those participants randomised to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD 7.7) among those participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference 0.1, 95% CI –1.8 to 2.0; p = 0.91). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at any time. Adjusted costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. Limitations: Levels of adherence in this pragmatic trial were low, but greater adherence was not associated with better mental health. Conclusions: The addition of lamotrigine to the usual care of people with BPD was not found to be clinically effective or provide a cost-effective use of resources. Future work: Future research into the treatment of BPD should focus on improving the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments to help policy-makers make better decisions about investing in specialist treatment services

Training School Teachers to Deliver a Mindfulness Program: Exploring Scalability, Acceptability, Effectiveness, and Cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: There is growing research support for the use of mindfulness training (MT) in schools, but almost no high-quality evidence about different training models for people wishing to teach mindfulness in this setting. Effective dissemination of MT relies on the development of scalable training routes. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 training routes for school teachers wishing to deliver MT differing in intensity and potential scalability, considering teaching competency, training acceptability, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Schools were randomized to an existing route comprising an 8-session instructor-led personal mindfulness course, combined with 4-day MT program training, or 1 of 3 more scalable, lower intensity, alternatives: an instructor-led personal mindfulness course combined with 1-day MT program training, a self-taught personal mindfulness course (delivered through a course book) combined with 4-day MT program training, and a self-taught personal mindfulness course combined with 1-day MT program training. RESULTS: Attrition from training was substantial across all routes. The instructor-led course was more effective than the self-taught course in increasing teachers' personal mindfulness skills. Even the most intensive (existing) training route brought only 29% of the teachers commencing training, and 56% of those completing the study protocol, to the required minimum competency threshold (an advanced beginner rating on an adapted version of the Mindfulness-based Interventions Teaching Assessment Criteria). The differences in levels of competency achieved by existing training compared with the more scalable alternatives were modest, with economic evaluation suggesting that the existing route was both more expensive and more effective than lower intensity alternatives, but with no statistically significant differences between routes. CONCLUSIONS: This research questions the move toward abbreviating teacher training to increase scalability and suggests instead that many teachers require additional support to ensure competency from first delivery of MT in the classroom

The Reflective Fostering Programme—improving the wellbeing of children in care through a group intervention for foster carers: a randomised controlled trial

Background: The needs of children in care are a government priority, yet the evidence base for effective interventions to support the emotional wellbeing of children in care is lacking. Research suggests that supporting the carer-child relationship, by promoting the carer’s reflective parenting, may be an effective approach to improving the wellbeing of these children. Methods: The study comprises a definitive, superiority, two-armed, parallel, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation, and an internal pilot, to evaluate the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of the Reflective Fostering Programme. Randomisation is at the individual level using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The study is being conducted in local authority sites across England, and is targeted at foster carers (including kinship carers) looking after children aged 4 to 13. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to the Reflective Fostering Programme (intervention arm) in addition to usual support or usual support alone (control arm). The primary outcome is behavioural and emotional wellbeing of the child 12 months post-baseline, and secondary outcomes include the following: foster carer’s level of stress, quality of life, reflective capacity, compassion fatigue and burnout, placement stability, the quality of the child-carer relationship, child’s capacity for emotional regulation, and achievement of personalised goals set by the carer. Discussion: A feasibility study has indicated effectiveness of the Programme in improving the child-carer relationship and emotional and behavioural wellbeing of children in care. This study will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing the Reflective Fostering Programme as an additional aid to the support already available to local authority foster carers. Trial registration: ISRCTN 70832140