A Review of Consumer-provided Services on Assertive Community Treatment and Intensive Case Management Teams: Implications for Future Research and Practice

Background—Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an evidence-based practice that provides intensive, in vivo services for adults with severe mental illness. Some ACT and intensive case management teams have integrated consumers as team members with varying results. Methods—We reviewed the literature examining the outcomes of having consumer providers on case management teams, with attention devoted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results—We identified 16 published studies, including 8 RCTs. Findings were mixed, with evidence supporting consumer-provided services for improving engagement, and limited support for reduced hospitalizations. However, evidence was lacking for other outcomes areas such as symptom reduction or improved quality of life. Conclusion—Including a consumer provider on an ACT team could enhance the outreach mechanisms of ACT, using a more recovery-focused approach to bring consumers into services and help engage them over time. More rigorous research is needed to further evaluate integrating consumer providers on teams

Factor structure of the autonomy preference index in people with severe mental illness

People vary in the amount of control they want to exercise over decisions about their healthcare. Given the importance of patient-centered care, accurate measurement of these autonomy preferences is critical. This study aimed to assess the factor structure of the Autonomy Preference Index (API), used widely in general healthcare, in individuals with severe mental illness. Data came from two studies of people with severe mental illness (N=293) who were receiving mental health and/or primary care/integrated care services. Autonomy preferences were assessed with the API regarding both psychiatric and primary care services. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate fit of the hypothesized two-factor structure of the API (decision-making autonomy and information-seeking autonomy). Results indicated the hypothesized structure for the API did not adequately fit the data for either psychiatric or primary care services. Three problematic items were dropped, resulting in adequate fit for both types of treatment. These results suggest that with relatively minor modifications the API has an acceptable factor structure when asking people with severe mental illness about their preferences to be involved in decision-making. The modified API has clinical and research utility for this population in the burgeoning field of autonomy in patient-centered healthcare

Managing physical and mental health conditions: Consumer perspectives on integrated care

Despite the growing trend of integrating primary care and mental health services, little research has documented how consumers with severe mental illnesses (SMI) manage comorbid conditions or view integrated services. We sought to better understand how consumers perceive and manage both mental and physical health conditions and their views of integrated services. We conducted semi-structured interviews with consumers receiving primary care services integrated in a community mental health setting. Consumers described a range of strategies to deal with physical health conditions and generally viewed mental and physical health conditions as impacting one another. Consumers viewed integration of primary care and mental health services favorably, specifically its convenience, friendliness, and knowledge of providers, and collaboration between providers. Although integration was viewed positively, consumers with SMI may need a myriad of strategies and supports to both initiate and sustain lifestyle changes that address common physical health problems

Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity

Assertive community treatment is known for improving consumer outcomes, but is difficult to implement. On-site fidelity measurement can help ensure model adherence, but is costly in large systems. This study compared reliability and validity of three methods of fidelity assessment (on-site, phone-administered, and expert-scored self-report) using a stratified random sample of 32 mental health intensive case management teams from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Overall, phone, and to a lesser extent, expert-scored self-report fidelity assessments compared favorably to on-site methods in inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. If used appropriately, these alternative protocols hold promise in monitoring large-scale program fidelity with limited resources

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570