A family perspective on parental psychosis: An interpretative phenomenological analysis study

Objectives: While one third of people with a psychotic disorder are a parent, there has been little research to date examining the consequences of this from a whole family perspective. This study investigates families where a parent has experienced an episode of psychosis and compares and contrasts the family members' perspectives. Design: This study was rooted in phenomenology and data were derived from in-depth semi-structured interviews. Methods: Parents with a psychotic disorder who had a child aged between 3 and 11 in a UK NHS Trust were invited to take part in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with these parents, with their child (if they were between the ages of 8 and 11), and with their partner or another close family member. Data were analysed using multiperspectival interpretive phenomenological analysis (m-IPA). Results: Thirteen participants took part comprising of five parents, four children, three partners and one grandmother. Four themes were developed using m-IPA: (1) Parental psychosis impacts the whole family, (2) Psychosis and my role as a parent, (3) Secrecy and concealment surrounding parental psychosis, and (4) Pressures and vulnerabilities within the family system. Conclusion: Psychosis had a negative impact on all family members and secrecy existed between family members. The children in particular only had partial information about their parent's mental illness, which left them worried and confused. More work is needed to support these families to explain psychosis to the children

The needs and experiences of parents with psychosis: a qualitative interview study

Over a third of individuals diagnosed with a psychotic disorder are also a parent. The symptoms of psychosis and side effects of antipsychotic medication can impact on parents’ awareness of the needs of their children and, at times, the parent may be emotionally and practically unavailable to their child. This study assessed the expressed emotion of parents with psychosis and used qualitative methods to investigate their needs and experience in order to identify how best to support this parent group. Twelve parents with a diagnosed psychotic disorder and with a child aged between 3 and 11 years took part in semi-structured interviews. The majority of parents displayed high levels of warmth and low levels of negativity towards their child. Four themes were generated using reflexive thematic analysis: (1) the impact of psychosis on parenting, (2) the need to protect their child, (3) the need to feel normal, and (4) the impact of parenting stress on psychosis. These results showed how parents want to protect their children and feel normal despite experiencing psychosis. They also highlighted the cyclical relationship between parenting stress and psychotic symptoms, whereby psychotic symptoms can impact on a parent’s capacity to care for their child and parenting stress can exacerbate psychotic symptoms

Parenting and psychosis: an experience sampling methodology study investigating the inter-relationship between stress from parenting and positive psychotic symptoms

Objectives There is a strong association between stress and psychotic symptoms, and this study examined the bidirectional nature of this relationship in parents with psychosis, with negative affect as a mediator and a range of other psychosocial factors included as covariates. It also examined whether stress from parenting had a larger impact on psychosis than non-parenting stress. Design The study used a within-participants repeated measures design, using experience sampling methodology (ESM). ESM is a self-report surveying technique completed over an intensive longitudinal period. Participants completed six surveys a day, for 10 days. Methods Thirty-five participants with psychosis who were a parent to a child between the ages of 2 and 16 took part. Study phones alerted participants to complete surveys by beeping at semi-random intervals over 10 days. Multi-level modelling was used with surveys at Level-1 and participants at Level-2. Predictor variables were time-lagged in order to infer directionality. Results Parenting stress was found to predict psychotic symptoms, and this relationship was mediated by negative affect. The reverse direction was also confirmed. Few of the additional psychosocial factors were found to have a significant impact on the models' estimations. Parenting stress was not found to have a larger impact on psychosis than other sources of stress. Conclusions This study provides further evidence of the bidirectional relationship between stress and psychosis in the context of parenting. Further research should explore if parenting stress plays a unique role in predicting psychotic symptoms by comparing parents and non-parents with psychosis

Parental health in the context of public family care proceedings: A scoping review of evidence and interventions

Background Child protective services (CPS), or their equivalent, have statutory power to remove children from birth parents in instances of child abuse, neglect, or concerns around parenting capacity via public family care proceedings. Parents who have children subject to proceedings, ‘birth parents’, often have complex health and social care needs. Objective We aimed to review what is known about the health needs of birth parents and the interventions implemented to support these health needs. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, and grey literature using a systematic strategy of key concepts “health”, “care proceedings”, and “parents”. We included all publications in English that reported parental health in the context of care proceedings from the 1st of January 2000 to the 1st of March 2021. Results Included studies (n = 61) reported on maternal health (57 %) or the health of both parents (40 %), with only one study reporting on fathers alone. We conceptually categorised parental health need (n = 41) into i) mental health, ii) physical health, iii) substance misuse, iv) developmental disorders, and v) reproductive health. Health inequities and poor access to services were described across all categories, with longstanding issues often pre-dating proceedings or the child's birth. All interventions supporting parental health (n = 20) were targeted at mothers, with some supporting fathers (n = 8), formally or informally. We grouped similar interventions into three types: alternative family courts, wrap-around services, and specialist advocacy/peer support. Conclusions Parents who have children subject to care proceedings have complex health needs that pre-date CPS concerns. The studies included in our review strongly suggest that health issues are exacerbated by child removal, triggering deteriorations in mental health, poor antenatal health for subsequent pregnancies, and avoidable mortality. Findings highlight the need for targeted and timely intervention for parents to improve whole-family outcomes. There are models that have been designed, implemented, and tested using relationship-based, trauma-informed, multidisciplinary, family-focused, and long-term approaches

Parental health in the context of public family care proceedings: A scoping review of evidence and interventions

Background: Child protective services (CPS), or their equivalent, have statutory power to remove children from birth parents in instances of child abuse, neglect, or concerns around parenting capacity via public family care proceedings. Parents who have children subject to proceedings, ‘birth parents’, often have complex health and social care needs. Objective: We aimed to review what is known about the health needs of birth parents and the interventions implemented to support these health needs. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and grey literature using a systematic strategy of key concepts “health”, “care proceedings”, and “parents”. We included all publications in English that reported parental health in the context of care proceedings from the 1st of January 2000 to the 1st of March 2021. Results: Included studies (n = 61) reported on maternal health (57 %) or the health of both parents (40 %), with only one study reporting on fathers alone. We conceptually categorised parental health need (n = 41) into i) mental health, ii) physical health, iii) substance misuse, iv) developmental disorders, and v) reproductive health. Health inequities and poor access to services were described across all categories, with longstanding issues often pre-dating proceedings or the child’s birth. All interventions supporting parental health (n = 20) were targeted at mothers, with some supporting fathers (n = 8), formally or informally. We grouped similar interventions into three types: alternative family courts, wrap-around services, and specialist advocacy/peer support. Conclusions: Parents who have children subject to care proceedings have complex health needs that pre-date CPS concerns. The studies included in our review strongly suggest that health issues are exacerbated by child removal, triggering deteriorations in mental health, poor antenatal health for subsequent pregnancies, and avoidable mortality. Findings highlight the need for targeted and timely intervention for parents to improve whole-family outcomes. There are models that have been designed, implemented, and tested using relationship-based, trauma-informed, multidisciplinary, family-focused, and long-term approaches

Evaluating ‘Enhancing Pragmatic Language skills for Young children with Social communication impairments’ (E-PLAYS): a feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background This article reports the results from a feasibility study of an intervention (‘E-PLAYS’) aimed at supporting children who experience difficulties with social communication. E-PLAYS is based around a dyadic computer game, which aims to develop collaborative and communication skills. A pilot study found that when E-PLAYS was delivered by researchers, improvements on communication test scores and on collaborative behaviours were observed. The aim of this study was to ascertain the feasibility of running a full-scale trial to test the effectiveness of E-PLAYS in a National Health Service (NHS) setting with delivery by speech and language therapists and teaching assistants. Methods The study was a two-arm feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial of the E-PLAYS intervention with a treatment as usual control arm. Data relating to recruitment and retention, treatment fidelity, acceptability to participants, suitability of outcomes and feasibility of collecting health economic measures and of determining cost-effectiveness were collected. Speech and language therapists selected suitable children (ages 4–7 years old) from their caseload. E-PLAYS intervention (experimental group) was then delivered by teaching assistants overseen by speech and language therapists. The control group received usual care. Assessments included blinded language measures and observations, non-blinded teacher-reported measures of peer relations and classroom behaviour and non-blinded parent-reported use of health and education resources and quality of life. Results Planned recruitment was for 70 children, in the event, 50 children were recruited which was sufficient for feasibility purposes. E-PLAYS was very highly rated by children, teaching assistants and speech and language therapists and treatment fidelity did not pose any issues. We were able to collect health economic data which suggests that E-PLAYS would be a low-cost intervention. Conclusion Based on recruitment, retention and adherence rates and our outcome measures, a full-scale randomised controlled trial estimated appears feasible and warranted to assess the effectiveness of E-PLAYS for use by the NHS and schools. Trial registration ISRCTN 14818949 (retrospectively registered)

The Prevalence and Cost of Unapproved Uses of Top-Selling Orphan Drugs

Introduction: The Orphan Drug Act encourages drug development for rare conditions. However, some orphan drugs become top sellers for unclear reasons. We sought to evaluate the extent and cost of approved and unapproved uses of orphan drugs with the highest unit sales. Methods We assessed prescription patterns for four top-selling orphan drugs: lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) approved for post-herpetic neuralgia, modafinil (Provigil) approved for narcolepsy, cinacalcet (Sensipar) approved for hypercalcemia of parathyroid carcinoma, and imatinib (Gleevec) approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. We pooled patient-specific diagnosis and prescription data from two large US state pharmaceutical benefit programs for the elderly. We analyzed the number of new and total patients using each drug and patterns of reimbursement for approved and unapproved uses. For lidocaine patch, we subcategorized approved prescriptions into two subtypes of unapproved uses: neuropathic pain, for which some evidence of efficacy exists, and non-neuropathic pain. Results: We found that prescriptions for lidocaine patch, modafinil, and cinacalcet associated with non-orphan diagnoses rose at substantially higher rates (average monthly increases in number of patients of 14.6, 1.45, and 1.58) than prescriptions associated with their orphan diagnoses (3.12, 0.24, and 0.03, respectively (p75%). Increases in lidocaine patch use for non-neuropathic pain far exceeded neuropathic pain (10.2 vs. 3.6 patients, p<0.001). Discussion In our sample, three of four top-selling orphan drugs were used more commonly for non-orphan indications. These orphan drugs treated common clinical symptoms (pain and fatigue) or laboratory abnormalities. We should continue to monitor orphan drug use after approval to identify products that come to be widely used for non-FDA approved indications, particularly those without adequate evidence of efficacy

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)