Early intervention in psychosis for first episode psychotic mania: the experience of people diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention for people diagnosed with bipolar disorder has been identified as a priority, but little is known about how existing early intervention services are experienced by this group or could be tailored to their needs. AIMS: This study examined the experience of early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services for people diagnosed with bipolar disorder, following first episode psychotic mania. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 adults in EIP services and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: One superordinate theme was formed, Rebuilding within EIP service, consisting of five subthemes: (i) Piecing together episode through talking to staff; (ii) Exploring other perspectives during CBT; (iii) Empowered through shared decision-making; (iv) Reconsidering future and purpose; (v) Service as safety-net. EIP provision was pivotal in helping participants understand their episode, adjust their perspective, build confidence and progress. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of the service that were valued, including person-centred relationships with staff, shared decision-making and the development of motivation and opportunities, reflect key principles of mental health care for young people following first episode psychosis. Furthermore, findings point to elements that may be particularly relevant to early intervention following first episode psychotic mania including managing mood escalation and individualised approaches to goals.

'Between a rock and a hard place': family members' experiences of supporting a relative with bipolar disorder.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines emphasise the central role of family members in supporting people with bipolar disorder. However, there has been little focus on the challenges family members face in supporting their relative. This qualitative study explored the challenges of providing support to a relative with bipolar disorder, and how family members attempted to meet these challenges. Factors that helped or hindered their efforts were also explored, including experiences of professional support. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 family members (partners, parents, adult children, and siblings). Transcripts were analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Participants faced numerous challenges pertaining to the nature of the disorder and specific illness phases, their relative's responses to their attempts to help, and the limitations of support from healthcare professionals. Although participants were resourceful in managing these challenges, they strongly valued professional input. Six themes were identified: 'Not knowing: like being in a minefield', 'It's out of my control: sitting waiting for the next thing to happen', 'Treading on eggshells', 'Picking up on signs', 'Times of crisis: between a rock and a hard place', and 'I have to make my voice heard'. CONCLUSIONS: Family members supporting a relative with bipolar disorder face significant challenges but show considerable resourcefulness in managing them. The findings underline the importance of input from healthcare professionals to help family members effectively support their relative and manage the challenges they face. Professional support should be strengths-based, and tailored to family members' needs.

Psychological interventions for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Clinical guidelines recommend that psychological interventions be offered to caregivers of people with bipolar disorder. However, there is little clarity about the efficacy of such interventions. This review examined the efficacy of psychological interventions in improving caregiver-focused outcomes, including burden, psychological symptoms and knowledge. METHOD: A systematic search for controlled trials was conducted using a combination of electronic database searches (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL), and hand searches. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were meta-analysed using Review Manager (RevMan). RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. All meta-analyses compared psychoeducation to a control. At post-treatment there was a large effect of psychoeducation on burden (g = -0.8, 95% CI: -1.32, -0.27). However, there was high heterogeneity, confidence intervals were wide, and the effect was not maintained at follow-up. The apparent effect of psychoeducation on psychological symptoms was driven by a single outlying study. There was a very large effect on knowledge at post-treatment (g = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.39, 3.82) and follow-up (g = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.85, 3.98). LIMITATIONS: There was considerable diversity in study methodology and quality. The number of included studies and sample sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides tentative meta-analytic evidence for the efficacy of psychoeducation in improving caregiver burden at post-treatment, and knowledge at post-treatment and follow-up. Services could consider offering psychoeducation as part of a multi-disciplinary package of care. However, more methodologically rigorous research is needed before clinical recommendations can be made with confidence.