Additional interventions to enhance the effectiveness of individual placement and support: a rapid evidence assessment

Topic: Additional interventions used to enhance the effectiveness of individual placement and support (IPS). Aim: To establish whether additional interventions improve the vocational outcomes of IPS alone for people with severe mental illness. Method: A rapid evidence assessment of the literature was conducted for studies where behavioural or psychological interventions have been used to supplement standard IPS. Published and unpublished empirical studies of IPS with additional interventions were considered for inclusion. Conclusions. Six published studies were found which compared IPS alone to IPS plus a supplementary intervention. Of these, three used skills training and three used cognitive remediation. The contribution of each discrete intervention is difficult to establish. Some evidence suggests that work-related social skills and cognitive training are effective adjuncts, but this is an area where large RCTs are required to yield conclusive evidence

A ‘criminal personas’ approach to countering criminal creativity

This paper describes a pilot study of a ‘criminal personas’ approach to countering criminal creativity. The value of the personas approach has been assessed by comparing the identification of criminal opportunity, through ‘traditional’ brainstorming and then through ‘criminal personas’ brainstorming The method involved brainstorm sessions with Computer Forensics Practitioners and with Product Designers, where they were required to generate criminal scenarios, select the most serious criminal opportunities, and propose means of countering them. The findings indicated that there was merit in further research in the development and application of the ‘criminal personas’ approach. The generation of criminal opportunity ideas and proposal of counter criminal solutions were both greater when the brainstorm approach involved the group responding through their given criminal personas

Classification of first branchial cleft anomalies: is it clinically relevant?

Background: There are three classification systems for first branchial cleft anomalies currently in use. The Arnot, Work and Olsen classifications describe these lesions on the basis of morphology, tissue of origin and clinical appearance. However, the clinical relevance of these classifications is debated, as they may not be readily applicable in all cases and may provide no additional information on how the lesion should be managed.Objective: We seek to investigate this issue by applying these classification systems to cases from our centre and evaluating the information gained.Patients and methods: A retrospective case note review of all first branchial cleft anomalies excised at our institution between 2004 and 2014 was carried out, recording patient demographics, information on the anomalies and how they were investigated and managed.Results: This search identified eight unilateral cases and one bilateral case of first branchial cleft anomalies. These were a heterogenous group of lesions, which were variably investigated and managed. Categorization of these cases into Arnot, Work and Olsen subtypes did not correlate with the lesion’s relation with the facial nerve or the outcome of excision.Conclusion: The current classification systems used for first branchial cleft anomalies have little clinical relevance apart from providing extensive descriptions to aid in diagnosis. We advise instead that clinicians use imaging techniques to gain as much information as possible about these lesions before excision and be aware of the risk to the facial nerve at the time of excision. A description of the lesion’s relation with the facial nerve at the time of excision may provide more information on the likely outcomes compared with the classifications currently in use.Keywords: branchial cleft, congenital anomaly, facial nerve injury, first branchial cleft anomal

Feasibility trial of a psychoeducational intervention for parents with personality difficulties: the Helping Families Programme

The Helping Families Programme is a psychoeducational parenting intervention that aims to improve outcomes and engagement for parents affected by clinically significant personality difficulties. This is achieved by working collaboratively with parents to explore ways in which their emotional and relational difficulties impact on parenting and child functioning, and to identify meaningful and realistic goals for change. The intervention is delivered via one-to-one sessions at weekly intervals over a period of 16 weeks. This protocol describes a two arm parallel RCT in which consenting parents are randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the Helping Families Programme plus the usual services that the parent may be receiving from their mental health and/or social care providers, or to standard care (usual services plus a brief parenting advice session). The primary clinical outcome will be child behaviour. Secondary clinical outcomes will be child and parental mental health, parenting satisfaction, parenting behaviour and therapeutic alliance. Health economic measures will be collected on quality of life and service use. Outcome measures will be collected at the initial assessment stage, after the intervention is completed and at 6-month follow-up by research staff blind to group allocation. Trial feasibility will be assessed using rates of trial participation at the three time points and intervention uptake, attendance and retention. A parallel process evaluation will use qualitative interviews to ascertain key-workers’ and parent participants' experiences of intervention delivery and trial participation. The results of this feasibility study will determine the appropriateness of proceeding to a full-scale trial

Determining the Efficacy of Interventions to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Perpetration by Men who Use Substances: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

A summary of key features from a systematic review protocol registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews

The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials

Background: There is a concern in the literature that harm from interventions is insufficiently documented in clinical trials in general, and in those assessing psychological treatments in particular. A recent decision by a trial steering committee to stop recruitment into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a psychological intervention for personality disorder led to an investigation of the recording of harm in trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Methods: The protocols and final reports of all 82 NIHR trials funded between 1995 and 2013 were examined for the reporting of adverse events. These were subdivided by category of intervention. Results: None of the psychological intervention trials mentioned the occurrence of an adverse event in their final report. Trials of drug treatments were more likely to mention adverse events in their protocols compared with those using psychological treatments. When adverse events were mentioned, the protocols of psychological interventions relied heavily on severe adverse events guidelines from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES), which were developed for drug rather than psychological interventions and so may not be appropriate for the latter. Conclusions: This survey supported the belief that the reporting of adverse events in psychological treatments is weak and the criteria used may not be appropriate. Recommendations are made as to how current practice might be improved

Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus treatment as usual: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial of a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder

Background: Previous research has demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of long-term psychological treatment for people with some types of personality disorder. However, the high intensity and cost of these interventions limit their availability. Lower-intensity interventions are increasingly being offered to people with personality disorder, but their clinical and cost effectiveness have not been properly tested in experimental studies. We therefore set out to develop a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical effectiveness of this intervention with that of treatment as usual (TAU). Methods: A two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus TAU for people aged over 18 years, who are using secondary care mental health services and have personality disorder. We will exclude people with co-existing organic or psychotic mental disorders (dementia, bipolar affective disorder, delusional disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizotypal disorder), those with cognitive or language difficulties that would preclude them from providing informed consent or compromise participation in study procedures, and those who are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder. Participants will be randomized via a remote system in a ratio of PSP to TAU of 1:1. Randomization will be stratified according to the referring team and gender of the participant. A single follow-up assessment will be conducted by masked researchers 24 weeks after randomization to assess mental health (using the Warwick and Edinburgh Well-Being Schedule), social functioning (using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), incidence of suicidal behavior, satisfaction with care (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), and resource use and costs using a modified version of the Adult Service Use Schedule. In addition to this, each participant will be asked to complete the patient version of the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Feasibility and acceptability will primarily be judged by study recruitment rate and engagement and retention in treatment. The analysis will focus principally on descriptive data on the rate of recruitment, characteristics of participants, attrition, adherence to therapy, and follow-up. We will explore the distribution of study outcomes to investigate assumptions of normality in order to plan the analysis and sample size of a future definitive trial. Discussion: Most people with personality disorder do not currently receive evidence-based interventions. While a number of high intensity psychological treatments have been shown to be effective, there is an urgent need to develop effective low intensity approaches to help people unable to use existing treatments. PSP is a low intensity intervention for individuals, which was developed following extensive consultation with users and providers of services for people with personality disorder. This study aims to examine the feasibility of a randomized trial of PSP compared to TAU for people with personality disorder

Developing a Model for Evidence-based Clinical Forensic Interviewing

Much of the work undertaken in forensic settings, such as diagnosis, formulation and judgements about treatment and placement are based on information gathered through clinical forensic interviewing. Despite this, the evidence base on which clinical forensic interviewing is founded is extremely limited. This paper is divided into two sections; the first examines the nature of interviewing and provides an introduction to this area of practice. Drawing on some of the research undertaken with specific forms of interview such as those for diagnosis and investigative purposes allows factors such as the evidence concerning interview quality, interview effectiveness, underlying competencies and methods for skills training to be outlined. The second part of the paper, which provides the main focus, describes a forensic clinical interview framework which seeks to draw together a broad range of considerations and areas for research in relation to the clinical forensic interview. This framework is explicitly intended to provoke and guide practitioners and researchers in the pursuit of evidence-based interviewing

Structured psychological support for people with personality disorder: feasibility randomised controlled trial of a low-intensity intervention

National guidance cautions against low-intensity interventions for people with personality disorder, but evidence from trials is lacking. To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of a low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder. Single-blind, feasibility trial (trial registration: ISRCTN14994755). We recruited people aged 18 or over with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder from mental health services, excluding those with a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder. We randomly allocated participants via a remote system on a 1:1 ratio to six to ten sessions of Structured Psychological Support (SPS) or to treatment as usual. We assessed social functioning, mental health, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care and resource use and costs at baseline and 24 weeks after randomisation. A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to either SPS (n = 33) or treatment as usual (n = 30). Twenty-nine (88%) of those in the active arm of the trial received one or more session (median 7). Among 46 (73%) who were followed up at 24 weeks, social dysfunction was lower (-6.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -0.6, P = 0.03) and satisfaction with care was higher (6.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 10.4; P = 0.002) in those allocated to SPS. Statistically significant differences were not found in other outcomes. The cost of the intervention was low and total costs over 24 weeks were similar in both groups. SPS may provide an effective low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and should be tested in fully powered clinical trials

Mentalization for Offending Adult Males (MOAM): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate mentalization-based treatment for antisocial personality disorder in male offenders on community probation

Background Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), although associated with very significant health and social burden, is an under-researched mental disorder for which clinically effective and cost-effective treatment methods are urgently needed. No intervention has been established for prevention or as the treatment of choice for this disorder. Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is a psychotherapeutic treatment that has shown some promising preliminary results for reducing personality disorder symptomatology by specifically targeting the ability to recognize and understand the mental states of oneself and others, an ability that is compromised in people with ASPD. This paper describes the protocol of a multi-site RCT designed to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MBT for reducing aggression and alleviating the wider symptoms of ASPD in male offenders subject to probation supervision who fulfil diagnostic criteria for ASPD. Methods Three hundred and two participants recruited from a pool of offenders subject to statutory supervision by the National Probation Service at 13 sites across the UK will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to 12 months of probation plus MBT or standard probation as usual, with follow-up to 24 months post-randomization. The primary outcome is frequency of aggressive antisocial behaviour as assessed by the Overt Aggression Scale – Modified. Secondary outcomes include violence, offending rates, alcohol use, drug use, mental health status, quality of life, and total service use costs. Data will be gathered from police and criminal justice databases, NHS record linkage, and interviews and self-report measures administered to participants. Primary analysis will be on an intent-to-treat basis; per-protocol analysis will be undertaken as secondary analysis. The primary outcome will be analysed using hierarchical mixed-effects linear regression. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using mixed-effects linear regression, mixed-effects logistic regression, and mixed-effects Poisson models for secondary outcomes depending on whether the outcome is continuous, binary, or count data. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be undertaken. Discussion This definitive, national, multi-site trial is of sufficient size to evaluate MBT to inform policymakers, service commissioners, clinicians, and service users about its potential to treat offenders with ASPD and the likely impact on the population at risk