Psychoeducation: A Basic Psychotherapeutic Intervention for Patients With Schizophrenia and Their Families

Psychoeducation was originally conceived as a composite of numerous therapeutic elements within a complex family therapy intervention. Patients and their relatives were, by means of preliminary briefing concerning the illness, supposed to develop a fundamental understanding of the therapy and further be convinced to commit to more long-term involvement. Since the mid 1980s, psychoeducation in German-speaking countries has evolved into an independent therapeutic program with a focus on the didactically skillful communication of key information within the framework of a cognitive-behavioral approach. Through this, patients and their relatives should be empowered to understand and accept the illness and cope with it in a successful manner. Achievement of this basic-level competency is considered to constitute an “obligatory-exercise” program upon which additional “voluntary-exercise” programs such as individual behavioral therapy, self-assertiveness training, problem-solving training, communication training, and further family therapy interventions can be built. Psychoeducation looks to combine the factor of empowerment of the affected with scientifically founded treatment expertise in as efficient a manner as possible. A randomized multicenter study based in Munich showed that within a 2-year period such a program was related to a significant reduction in rehospitalization rates from 58% to 41% and also a shortening of intermittent days spent in hospital from 78 to 39 days. Psychoeducation, in the form of an obligatory-exercise program, should be made available to all patients suffering from a schizophrenic disorder and their families

Lessons learned from applying established cut-off values of questionnaires to detect somatic symptom disorders in primary care: a cross-sectional study

IntroductionBased on two diagnostic accuracy studies in high-prevalence settings, two distinctly different combinations of cut-off values have been recommended to identify persons at risk for somatic symptom disorder (SSD) with the combination of the Patient-Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Somatic Symptom Disorder—B Criteria Scale (SSD-12). We investigated whether the reported sensitivity and specificity of both recommended cut-off combinations are transferable to primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, 420 unselected adult primary care patients completed PHQ-15 and SSD-12. Patients scoring ≥9 and ≥ 23 (recommended cut-off combination #1) or ≥ 8 and ≥ 13 (recommended cut-off combination #2) were considered test-positive for SSD, respectively. To assess the validity of the reported sensitivity and specificity in different low- to high-prevalence settings, we compared correspondingly expected proportions of test positives to the proportion observed in our sample.ResultsBased on combination #1, 38 participants (9%) were found to be test positive, far fewer than expected, based on the reported values for sensitivity and specificity (expected minimum frequency 30% with a true prevalence ≥1%). This can only be explained by a lower sensitivity and higher specificity in primary care. For combination #2, 98 participants (23%) were test positive, a finding consistent with a true prevalence of SSD of 15% or lower.DiscussionOur analyzes strongly suggest that the sensitivity and specificity estimates reported for combination #1 are not applicable to unselected primary care patients and that the cut-off for the SSD (≥23) is too strict. Cut-off combination #2 seems more applicable but still needs to be tested in studies that compare screening findings by questionnaires with validated diagnostic interviews as reference standards in primary care populations