Towards Horizon 2020: challenges and advances for clinical mental health research - outcome of an expert survey

BACKGROUND: The size and increasing burden of disease due to mental disorders in Europe poses substantial challenges to its population and to the health policy of the European Union. This warrants a specific research agenda concerning clinical mental health research as one of the cornerstones of sustainable mental health research and health policy in Europe. The aim of this research was to identify the top priorities needed to address the main challenges in clinical research for mental disorders. METHODS: The research was conducted as an expert survey and expert panel discussion during a scientific workshop. RESULTS: Eighty-nine experts in clinical research and representing most European countries participated in this survey. Identified top priorities were the need for new intervention studies, understanding the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of mechanisms of disease, and research in the field of somatic-psychiatric comorbidity. The 'subjectivity gap' between basic neuroscience research and clinical reality for patients with mental disorders is considered the main challenge in psychiatric research, suggesting that a shift in research paradigms is required. CONCLUSION: Innovations in clinical mental health research should bridge the gap between mechanisms underlying novel therapeutic interventions and the patient experience of mental disorder and, if present, somatic comorbidity. Clinical mental health research is relatively underfunded and should receive specific attention in Horizon 2020 funding programs

Early detection and intervention evaluation for people at risk of psychosis: multisite randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether cognitive therapy is effective in preventing the worsening of emerging psychotic symptoms experienced by help seeking young people deemed to be at risk for serious conditions such as schizophrenia

Development and validation of a non-remission risk prediction model in first episode psychosis:An Analysis of 2 Longitudinal Studies

Psychosis is a major mental illness with first onset in young adults. The prognosis is poor in around half of the people affected, and difficult to predict. The few tools available to predict prognosis have major weaknesses which limit their use in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model of symptom nonremission in first-episode psychosis. Our development cohort consisted of 1027 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2005 and 2010 from 14 early intervention services across the National Health Service in England. Our validation cohort consisted of 399 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2006 and 2009 from a further 11 English early intervention services. The one-year nonremission rate was 52% and 54% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model for nonremission, which was externally validated. The prediction model showed good discrimination C-statistic of 0.73 (0.71, 0.75) and adequate calibration with intercept alpha of 0.12 (0.02, 0.22) and slope beta of 0.98 (0.85, 1.11). Our model improved the net-benefit by 15% at a risk threshold of 50% compared to the strategy of treating all, equivalent to 15 more detected nonremitted first-episode psychosis individuals per 100 without incorrectly classifying remitted cases. Once prospectively validated, our first episode psychosis prediction model could help identify patients at increased risk of nonremission at initial clinical contact.</p

Therapist Effects and the Impact of Early Therapeutic Alliance on Symptomatic Outcome in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Few studies have examined therapist effects and therapeutic alliance (TA) in treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Therapist effects are the differences in outcomes achieved by different therapists. TA is the quality of the bond and level of agreement regarding the goals and tasks of therapy. Prior research suffers the methodological problem that the allocation of therapist was not randomized, meaning therapist effects may be confounded with selection effects. We used data from a randomized controlled treatment trial of 296 people with CFS. The trial compared pragmatic rehabilitation (PR), a nurse led, home based self-help treatment, a counselling-based treatment called supportive listening (SL), with general practitioner treatment as usual. Therapist allocation was randomized. Primary outcome measures, fatigue and physical functioning were assessed blind to treatment allocation. TA was measured in the PR and SL arms. Regression models allowing for interactions were used to examine relationships between (i) therapist and therapeutic alliance, and (ii) therapist and average treatment effect (the difference in mean outcomes between different treatment conditions). We found no therapist effects. We found no relationship between TA and the average treatment effect of a therapist. One therapist formed stronger alliances when delivering PR compared to when delivering SL (effect size 0.76, SE 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41). In these therapies for CFS, TA does not influence symptomatic outcome. The lack of significant therapist effects on outcome may result from the trial’s rigorous quality control, or random therapist allocation, eliminating selection effects. Further research is needed