Engagement-focused care during transitions from inpatient and emergency psychiatric facilities.

OBJECTIVES: As many as 40% of those with serious mental illness (SMI) do not attend any outpatient visits in the 30 days following discharge. We examined engagement-focused care (EFC) versus treatment as usual in a university-based transitional care clinic (TCC) with a 90-day program serving individuals with SMI discharged from hospitals and emergency rooms. EFC included a unique group intake process (access group) designed to get individuals into care rapidly and a shared decision-making coach. METHODS: Assessments of quality of life, symptomatology, and shared decision-making preferences were conducted at baseline, at 3 months corresponding to the end of TCC treatment and 6 months after TCC discharge. Communication among the patients and providers was assessed at each visit as was service utilization during and after TCC. RESULTS: Subjective quality of life improved in EFC. Prescribers and patients saw communication more similarly as time went on. Ninety-one percent of patients wanted at least some say in decisions about their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: SDM coaching and improved access improve quality of life. Most people want a say in treatment decisions.

What Patients With Severe Mental Illness Transitioning From Hospital to Community Have to Say About Care and Shared Decision-Making.

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been slow to disseminate in mental health. We conducted focus groups with ten individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) treated in a 90 day, outpatient transitional care clinic. Parallel groups were held with family caregivers (n = 8). Individuals with SMI wanted longer visits, to have their stories heard, more information about options presented simply, to hear from peers about similar experiences, and a bigger say in treatment choices. Caregivers wanted to be invited to participate to a larger extent.  Results suggest that after a decade, SDM may not have the expected penetration in community mental health.

Is cognitive adaptation training (CAT) compensatory, restorative, or both?

Cognitive adaptation training (CAT) is a psychosocial treatment incorporating environmental supports including signs, checklists to bypass the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia. Our objective was to examine the association between CAT, functional outcomes, and cognitive test performance (cognition). The two research questions were as follows: 1) Does cognition mediate the effect of CAT intervention on functional outcome? 2) Does CAT impact cognitive test performance? A total of 120 participants with schizophrenia were randomized to one of three treatments: 1) CAT (weekly for 9months; monthly thereafter), 2) generic environmental supports (given to participants on clinic visits to promote adaptive behavior), or 3) treatment as usual (TAU). Assessments of cognition and functional outcome were conducted at baseline, 9 and 24months. Mediation analyses and mixed effects regression were conducted. Mediation analyses revealed that during the initial 9months, the direct path from treatment group to functional outcome on the primary measure was positive and highly significant. CAT significantly improved functional outcome compared to the other treatments. However, paths involving cognition were negligible. There was no evidence that cognition mediated improvement in functional outcomes. At 24months, cognition improved more in CAT compared to other treatment groups. The test for cognition mediating improvement in functional outcomes was not significant at this time point. However, improvement in functional outcome led to better performance on cognitive testing. We concluded that improvement in cognition is not a necessary condition for improvement in functional outcome and that greater engagement in functional behavior has a positive impact on cognition.

A qualitative assessment of cross-cultural adaptation of intermediate measures for schizophrenia in multisite international studies.

In this substudy of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia we examined qualitative feedback on the cross-cultural adaptability of four intermediate measures of functional outcome (Independent Living Scales, UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment, Test of Adaptive Behavior in Schizophrenia, and Cognitive Assessment Interview). Feedback was provided by experienced English-fluent clinical researchers at 31 sites in eight countries familiar with medication trials. Researchers provided feedback on test subscales and items which were rated as having adaptation challenges. They noted the specific concern and made suggestions for adaptation to their culture. We analyzed the qualitative data using a modified Grounded Theory approach guided by the International Testing Commission Guidelines model for test adaptation. For each measure except the Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI), the majority of subscales were reported to require major adaptations in terms of content and concepts contained in the subscale. In particular, social, financial, transportation and health care systems varied widely across countries-systems which are often used to assess performance capacity in the U.S. We provide suggestions for how to address future international test development and adaptation.

The cultural adaptability of intermediate measures of functional outcome in schizophrenia.

The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia initiative was designed to encourage the development of cognitive enhancing agents for schizophrenia. For a medication to receive this indication, regulatory agencies require evidence of improvement in both cognition and functional outcome. Because medication trials are conducted across multiple countries, we examined ratings of the cross-cultural adaptability of 4 intermediate measures of functional outcome (Independent Living Scales, UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment, Test of Adaptive Behavior in Schizophrenia, Cognitive Assessment Interview [CAI]) made by experienced clinical researchers at 31 sites in 8 countries. English-speaking research staff familiar with conducting medication trials rated the extent to which each subscale of each intermediate measure could be applied to their culture and to subgroups within their culture based on gender, geographic region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on the Cultural Adaptation Rating Scale. Ratings suggested that the CAI would be easiest to adapt across cultures. However, in a recent study, the CAI was found to have weaker psychometric properties than some of the other measures. Problems were identified for specific subscales on all the performance-based assessments across multiple countries. India, China, and Mexico presented the greatest challenges in adaptation. For international clinical trials, it would be important to use the measures that are most adaptable, to adapt subscales that are problematic for specific countries or regions, or to develop a battery composed of the subscales from different instruments that may be most acceptable across multiple cultures with minimal adaptation.