Are attitudes towards medication adherence associated with medication adherence behaviours among patients with psychosis? A systematic review and meta analysis

Background Studies have shown patient attitudes to be an important predictor for health related behaviours including medication adherence. It is less clear whether patient attitudes are also associated with medication adherence among patients with psychoses. Method We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of the data of studies that tested the association of attitude measures with medication adherence among patients with psychoses. 14 studies conducted between 1980 and 2010 were included. Results Results show a small to moderate mean weighted effect size (r + = 0.25 and 0.26 for Pearson and Spearman correlations, respectively). Conclusions Theory based interventions that target potentially modifiable attitude components are needed to assess the relationship between positive patient attitudes and adherence behaviours among patients with psychoses

Exploration of experiences in therapeutic groups for patients with severe mental illness: development of the Ferrara group experiences scale (FE-GES)

The study has been supported by the University of Ferrara (University Funds for Scientific Research 2008–2009

Report on ISCTM consensus meeting on clinical assessment of response to treatment of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia

Funding for this manuscript was provided by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology.Dr Keefe currently or in the past 3 years has received investigator-initiated research funding support from the Department of Veteran's Affair, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, GlaxoSmithKline, National Institute of Mental Health, Novartis, Psychogenics, Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc., and the Singapore National Medical Research Council. He currently or in the past 3 years has received honoraria, served as a consultant, or advisory board member for Abbvie, Akebia, Amgen, Asubio, AviNeuro/ChemRar, BiolineRx, Biogen Idec, Biomarin, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EnVivo/FORUM, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Minerva Neurosciences, Inc., Mitsubishi, Novartis, NY State Office of Mental Health, Otsuka, Pfizer, Reviva, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, Targacept, and the University of Texas South West Medical Center. Dr Keefe receives royalties from the BACS testing battery, the MATRICS battery (BACS Symbol Coding), and the Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool. He is also a shareholder in NeuroCog Trials, Inc. and Sengenix. Dr Haig is a full-time employee of Abbvie. Dr Marder has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Genentech, Roche, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, and Boeringer Ingelheim. He has received research support from Amgen, Sunovion, and Synchroneuron. Dr Harvey has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Labs, Forum Pharma, Genentech, Otsuka America, Roche Pharma, Sunovion Pharma, and Takeda Pharma during the past year. He also received contract research support from Genentech. Dr Dunayevich for the past 3 years has been a full-time employee and stockholder of Amgen. Dr Medalia in the past 3 years has received research funding support from Sunovion. Dr Medalia has also currently or in the past 3 years received honoraria or served as consultant for Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd., Otsuka, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Dr Davidson has received research grant support and/or travel support and/or speaker fees and/or consultancy fees from Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, Servier, Abbott, Minerva and holds stocks in CTR and BiolineRx. Dr Lombardo is a full-time employee of FORUM Pharmaceuticals. Dr Bowie reports receiving grant support from Pfizer. He has also been a consultant for Lundbeck, Otsuka, Abbvie, and Takeda. Dr Buchanan reports: Advisory Board: Abbvie, Amgen, EnVivo, Roche; Consultant: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EnVivo, Omeros; DSMB member: Pfizer. Dr Bugarski -Kirola is a full-time employee of Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr Carpenter in the past 2 years has been a consultant to Roche/Genetech. Dr Dago in the last 3 years has received honoraria from Lundbeck, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Pam Labs, and Astra Zeneca for lectures given in promotion of their psychotropic medications. Dr Durand in the past year has been a consultant and received honoraria from Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr Gold receives royalty payments from the BACS. He also has served as a consultant for Amgen, Hoffman LaRoche, and Lundbeck. Dr Hooker has served as a consultant and is currently a Co-Investigator on an NIH SBIR grant with PositScience Corporation. Dr Loebel is an employee of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr McGurk reports receiving consulting fees from Abbvie and EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. Dr Pinkham in the past year has received consulting fees from Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.The following authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study: Drs Csernansky, Frese, Goff, Kopelowic, Opler, and Stern. (International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology; Department of Veteran's Affair; Feinstein Institute for Medical Research; GlaxoSmithKline; National Institute of Mental Health; Novartis; Psychogenics; Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.; Singapore National Medical Research Council; Abbvie; Genentech; Roche; Lundbeck; Pfizer; Otsuka; Takeda; Boeringer Ingelheim; Amgen; Sunovion; Synchroneuron; Boehringer Ingelheim; Forest Labs; Forum Pharma; Otsuka America; Roche Pharma; Sunovion Pharma; Takeda Pharma; Eli Lilly; Servier; Abbott; Minerva; BACS; EnVivo Pharmaceuticals; Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.)Published versio

Change in level of productivity in the treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine or other antipsychotics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When treating schizophrenia, improving patients' productivity level is a major goal considering schizophrenia is a leading cause of functional disability. Productivity level has been identified as the most preferred treatment outcome by patients with schizophrenia. However, little has been done to systematically investigate productivity levels in schizophrenia. We set out to better understand the change in productivity level among chronically ill patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic medications. We also assessed the links between productivity level and other clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This post hoc analysis used data from 6 randomized, double-blind clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with each trial being of approximately 6 months duration. Change in productivity level was compared between olanzapine-treated patients (HGBG, n = 172; HGHJ, n = 277; HGJB, n = 171; HGLB, n = 281; HGGN, n = 159; HGDH, n = 131) and patients treated with other antipsychotic medications (separately vs. haloperidol [HGGN, n = 97; HGDH, n = 132], risperidone [HGBG, n = 167; HGGN, n = 158], quetiapine [HGJB, n = 175], ziprasidone [HGHJ, n = 271] and aripiprazole [HGLB, n = 285]). Productivity was defined as functional activities/work including working for pay, studying, housekeeping and volunteer work. Productivity level in the prior 3 months was assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from no useful functioning to functional activity/work 75% to 100% of the time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Chronically ill patients treated with olanzapine (OLZ) experienced significantly greater improvement in productivity when compared to patients treated with risperidone (RISP) (OLZ = 0.22 ± 1.19, RISP = -0.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.033) or ziprasidone (ZIP) (OLZ = 0.50 ± 1.38, ZIP = 0.25 ± 1.27, p = 0.026), but did not significantly differ from the quetiapine, aripiprazole or haloperidol treatment groups. Among first episode patients, OLZ therapy was associated with greater improvements in productivity levels compared to haloperidol (HAL), during the acute phase (OLZ = -0.31 ± 1.59, HAL = -0.69 ± 1.56, p = 0.011) and over the long-term (OLZ = 0.10 ± 1.50, HAL = -0.32 ± 1.91, p = 0.008). Significantly more chronically ill and first episode patients treated with olanzapine showed moderately high (>50%-75% of the time) and high levels of productivity (>75%-100% of the time) at endpoint, when compared to risperidone or haloperidol-treated patients (p < .05), respectively. Higher productivity level was associated with significantly higher study completion rates and better scores on the positive, negative, disorganized thoughts, hostility and depression subscales of the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Some antipsychotic medications significantly differed in beneficial impact on productivity level in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Findings further highlight the link between clinical and functional outcomes, showing significant associations between higher productivity, lower symptom severity and better persistence on therapy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088049">NCT00088049</a>; <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00036088">NCT00036088</a></p

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Registration number <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01361698">NCT01361698</a>.</p

Collaborative planning approach to inform the implementation of a healthcare manager intervention for hispanics with serious mental illness: a study protocol

Background: This study describes a collaborative planning approach that blends principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and intervention mapping to modify a healthcare manager intervention to a new patient population and provider group and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this modified intervention to improve the physical health of Hispanics with serious mental illness (SMI) and at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: The proposed study uses a multiphase approach that applies CBPR principles and intervention-mapping steps--an intervention-planning approach--to move from intervention planning to pilot testing. In phase I, a community advisory board composed of researchers and stakeholders will be assembled to learn and review the intervention and make initial modifications. Phase II uses a combination of qualitative methods--patient focus groups and stakeholder interviews--to ensure that the modifications are acceptable to all stakeholders. Phase III uses results from phase II to further modify the intervention, develop an implementation plan, and train two care managers on the modified intervention. Phase IV consists of a 12-month open pilot study (N = 30) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the modified intervention and explore its initial effects. Lastly, phase V consists of analysis of pilot study data and preparation for future funding to develop a more rigorous evaluation of the modified intervention. Discussion: The proposed study is one of the few projects to date to focus on improving the physical health of Hispanics with SMI and at risk for CVD by using a collaborative planning approach to enhance the transportability and use of a promising healthcare manager intervention. This study illustrates how blending health-disparities research and implementation science can help reduce the disproportionate burden of medical illness in a vulnerable population

Incorporating clinical guidelines through clinician decision-making

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is generally acknowledged that a disparity between knowledge and its implementation is adversely affecting quality of care. An example commonly cited is the failure of clinicians to follow clinical guidelines. A guiding assumption of this view is that adherence should be gauged by a standard of conformance. At least some guideline developers dispute this assumption and claim that their efforts are intended to inform and assist clinical practice, not to function as standards of performance. However, their ability to assist and inform will remain limited until an alternative to the conformance criterion is proposed that gauges how evidence-based guidelines are incorporated into clinical decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The proposed investigation has two specific aims to identify the processes that affect decisions about incorporating clinical guidelines, and then to develop ad test a strategy that promotes the utilization of evidence-based practices. This paper focuses on the first aim. It presents the rationale, introduces the clinical paradigm of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and discusses an exemplar of clinician non-conformance to a clinical guideline. A modification of the original study is proposed that targets psychiatric trainees and draws on a cognitively rich theory of decision-making to formulate hypotheses about how the guideline is incorporated into treatment decisions. Twenty volunteer subjects recruited from an accredited psychiatry training program will respond to sixty-four vignettes that represent a fully crossed 2 × 2 × 2 × 4 within-subjects design. The variables consist of criteria contained in the clinical guideline and other relevant factors. Subjects will also respond to a subset of eight vignettes that assesses their overall impression of the guideline. Generalization estimating equation models will be used to test the study's principal hypothesis and perform secondary analyses.</p> <p>Implications</p> <p>The original design of phase two of the proposed investigation will be changed in recognition of newly published literature on the relative effectiveness of treatments for schizophrenia. It is suggested that this literature supports the notion that guidelines serve a valuable function as decision tools, and substantiates the importance of decision-making as the means by which general principles are incorporated into clinical practice.</p