Improving physical health and reducing substance use in psychosis - randomised control trial (IMPACT RCT): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

The National Institute for Health Research funds the IMPACT programme at King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (ref: RP-PG-0606-1049)

Increased use of antipsychotic long-acting injections with community treatment orders

BACKGROUND: Community treatment orders (CTOs) are increasingly being used, despite a weak evidence base, and problems continue regarding Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) certification of medication. AIMS: The aim of the current study was to describe current CTO usage regarding patient characteristics, prescribed medication and CTO conditions. METHOD: A 1-year prospective cohort study with consecutive sampling was conducted for all patients whose CTO was registered in a large mental health trust. Only the first CTO for each patient was included. Measures included sociodemographic variables, psychiatric diagnosis, CTO date of initiation and conditions, psychotropic medication and date of SOAD certification for medication. This study was conducted in the first year of CTO legislation in England and Wales. RESULTS: A total of195 patients were sampled (mean age 40.6 years, 65% male, 52% black ethnic origin). There was significant geographical variability in rates of CTO use (χ(2) = 11.3, p = 0.012). A total of 53% had their place of residence specified as a condition and 29% were required to allow access into their homes. Of those with schizophrenia, 64% were prescribed an antipsychotic long-acting injection (LAI). Of the total group, 7% received high-dose antipsychotics, 10% were prescribed two antipsychotics and only 15% received SOAD certification in time. CONCLUSIONS: There was geographical and ethnic variation in CTO use but higher rates of hospital detention in minority ethnic groups may be contributory. Most patients were prescribed antipsychotic LAIs and CTO conditions may not follow the least restrictive principle

Myths and plain truths about schizophrenia epidemiology - the NAPE lecture 2004

Objective: Science needs to constantly match research models against the data. With respect to the epidemiology of schizophrenia, the widely held belief that the incidence of schizophrenia shows little variation may no longer be supported by the data. The aims of this paper are (i) to explore data-vs.-belief mismatch with respect to the incidence of schizophrenia, and (ii) to speculate on the causes and consequences of such discrepancies. Method: Based on a recently published systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia, the distribution of incidence rates around the world was examined. In order to examine if the incidence of schizophrenia differed by sex, male vs. female risk ratios were generated. Results: The distribution of incidence rates for schizophrenia is asymmetrical with many high rates skewing the distribution. Based on the central 80% of rates, the incidence of schizophrenia varies in a five-fold range (between 7.7 and 43.0 per 100 000). Males have a significantly higher incidence of schizophrenia compared with females (median male to female risk ratio = 1.4), and this difference could not be accounted for by diagnostic criteria or age range. Conclusion: The beliefs that (i) the incidence of schizophrenia does not vary between sites and (ii) males and females are equally affected, may have persisted because of an unspoken deeper belief that schizophrenia is an egalitarian and exceptional disorder. Our ability to generate productive hypotheses about the aetiology of schizophrenia rests on an accurate appraisal of the data. Beliefs not supported by data should be identified and relabelled as myths