Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Effect on relatives' outcomes and family interventions received.

Background: Family interventions (FI) are recommended as part of the treatment for psychotic disorders, but the implementation in mental health services is generally poor. Recently, The Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders (IFIP) trial, demonstrated significant improvements in implementation outcomes at cluster-level. This sub-study aims to examine the effectiveness of the IFIP intervention on relatives' outcomes and received FI. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial, was conducted in 15 Norwegian Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) units that were randomized to either the IFIP intervention, including implementation interventions and clinical interventions, or treatment as usual (TAU). The clinical interventions consisted of FI: basic family involvement and support (BFIS) to all patients and family psychoeducation (FPE) to as many as possible. Patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative were invited to fill in questionnaires at inclusion and 6 months and 12 months follow-up. Received FI was reported by both relatives and clinicians. The relatives' primary outcome was satisfaction with health service support, measured by the Carer well-being and support questionnaire part B (CWS-B). The relatives' secondary outcomes were caregiver experiences, expressed emotions and quality of life. Patients' outcomes will be reported elsewhere. Results: In total 231 patient/relative pairs from the CMHC units were included (135 intervention; 96 control).The relatives in the intervention arm received an increased level of BFIS (p=.007) and FPE (p < 0.05) compared to the relatives in the control arm, including involvement in crisis planning. The primary outcome for relatives' satisfaction with health service support, showed a non-significant improvement (Cohen's d = 0.22, p = 0.08). Relatives experienced a significant reduced level of patient dependency (Cohen's d = -0.23, p = 0.03). Conclusion: The increased support from clinicians throughout FI reduced the relatives' perceived level of patient dependency, and may have relieved the experience of responsibility and caregiver burden. The COVID-19 pandemic and the complex and pioneering study design have weakened the effectiveness of the IFIP intervention, underscoring possible potentials for further improvement in relatives' outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03869177.

Clinicians' perceptions of family involvement in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders: a nested qualitative study.

Background: Family involvement in mental health care ranges from basic practices to complex interventions such as Family psychoeducation, the latter being a well-documented treatment for psychotic disorders. The aim of this study was to explore clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of family involvement, including possible mediating factors and processes. Methods: Nested in a randomised trial, which purpose was to implement Basic family involvement and support and Family psychoeducation in Norwegian community mental health centres during 2019-2020, this qualitative study is based on eight focus groups with implementation teams and five focus groups with ordinary clinicians. Using a purposive sampling strategy and semi-structured interview guides, focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four main themes were identified as perceived benefits: (1) Family psychoeducation-a concrete framework, (2) Reducing conflict and stress, (3) A triadic understanding, and (4) Being on the same team. Themes 2-4 formed an interconnected triad of mutually reinforcing elements and were further linked to three important clinician-facilitated sub-themes: a space for relatives' experiences, emotions and needs; a space for patients and relatives to discuss sensitive topics and an open line of communication between clinician and relative. Although far less frequent, three main themes were identified as perceived disadvantages or challenges: (1) Family psychoeducation-occasional poor model fit or difficulties following the framework, (2) Getting more involved than usual, and (3) Relatives as a potentially negative influence-important nonetheless. Conclusions: The findings contribute to the understanding of the beneficial processes and outcomes of family involvement, as well as the critical role of the clinician in achieving these and possible challenges. They could also be used to inform future quantitative research on mediating factors and implementation efforts.

"The most important thing is that those closest to you, understand you": a nested qualitative study of persons with psychotic disorders' experiences with family involvement.

Introduction: Family interventions constitute effective treatment for persons with psychotic disorders. However, the active ingredients and beneficial processes of these interventions are insufficiently examined, and qualitative explorations of patients` experiences are lacking. This study was nested in a cluster randomised trial that implemented national guidelines on family involvement in Norwegian community mental health centres, including family psychoeducation and basic family involvement and support. The aim of this sub-study was to explore how patients with psychotic disorders experience systematic family involvement, and its significance. Methods: We conducted semi-structured, individual interviews with 13 persons with a psychotic disorder after systematic family involvement. The participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Qualitative content analysis guided the analysis. Results: Participants reported overall positive experiences with systematic family involvement. It was significant that the relatives increasingly understood more about psychosis and their situation, while they themselves also gained more insight into the relatives` situation. The participants emphasised the need to enable both patients and relatives to safely share experiences in a containing space, led by professionals. Shared understanding and awareness of each other's situation further improved communication, coping with the illness, reduced stress, and stimulated a more caring family environment. The therapist seemed crucial to facilitate these beneficial communication processes, and also to provide continuous support to the relatives. Reported challenges included that the participants felt vulnerable in the initial phase, a need for tailored approaches, and too late start-up. Conclusion: Findings from this study suggest that persons with psychotic disorders may benefit greatly from participating in systematic family involvement. This study also gives new insight into possible mediators of positive outcomes both for the patients and the relatives. Systematic family involvement should be implemented a standard approach in the early phase of the disease, using a step-wise and tailored process.

Implementation of Guidelines on Family Involvement for Persons with Psychotic Disorders (IFIP): A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.

Family involvement is part of the evidence-based treatment for persons with psychotic disorders, yet is under-implemented despite guideline recommendations. This study assessed whether an implementation support programme increased the adherence to guidelines on family involvement, compared to guideline/manual only. In a cluster randomised design, community mental health centre units in South-East Norway went through stratified allocation to the experimental (n = 7) or control (n = 7) arm. Experimental clusters received an implementation support programme including clinical training and supervision, appointing a family coordinator and an implementation team, a toolkit, and fidelity measurements at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 months with on-site feedback and supervision. Control clusters received no such support and had fidelity measurements at baseline and 24 months without feedback. During fidelity measurements, adherence to the guidelines was measured with the basic family involvement and support scale, the general organizational index, and the family psychoeducation fidelity scale, the latter being the primary outcome. The scales consist of 12-14 items rated from 1 to 5. Data was analysed with an independent samples t-test, linear mixed models, and a tobit regression model. At 24 months, the mean scores were 4.00 or higher on all scales in the experimental arm, and the increase in adherence to the guidelines was significantly greater than in the control arm with p-values < 0.001. Large-scale implementation of guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres may be accomplished, with substantial implementation support.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

The duty of confidentiality during family involvement: ethical challenges and possible solutions in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement during severe mental illness is still poorly implemented, contrary to evidence-based recommendations. Confidentiality issues are among the most prominent barriers, with mental health professionals facing complex ethical, legal, and practical challenges. However, research focusing on this barrier is very sparse. Nested within a cluster-randomised trial to implement guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres, the aim of this sub-study was to explore ethical challenges related to the duty of confidentiality as experienced by mental health professionals, and to explore key measures that might contribute to improving the handling of such challenges. METHODS: In total 75 participants participated in 21 semi-structured focus groups, including implementation team members at the initial and late phase of the intervention period and clinicians who were not on the implementation teams, at late phase of implementation. We used purposive sampling and manifest content analysis to explore participants' experiences and change processes. RESULTS: Ethical challenges related to the duty of confidentiality included 1) Uncertainty in how to apply the legislation, 2) Patient autonomy versus a less strict interpretation of the duty of confidentiality, 3) Patient alliance and beneficence versus a less strict interpretation of the duty of confidentiality, 4) How to deal with uncertainty regarding what relatives know about the patients' illness, and 5) Relatives' interests versus the duty of confidentiality. Measures to facilitate better handling of the duty of confidentiality included 1) Training and practice in family involvement, and 2) Standardisation of family involvement practices. CONCLUSION: When health professionals gained competence in and positive experiences with family involvement, this led to vital changes in how they interpreted and practiced the duty of confidentiality in their ethical reasoning and in clinical practice. Especially, the need to provide sufficient information to the patients about family involvement became evident during the study. To improve the handling of confidentiality issues, professionals should receive training in family involvement and confidentiality statutes followed by practice. Furthermore, family involvement should be standardised, and confidentiality guidelines should be implemented in the mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

Barriers and facilitators when implementing family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of family involvement in health care services for patients with psychotic disorders is poor, despite a clear evidence base, socio-economic and moral justifications, policy, and guideline recommendations. To respond to this knowledge-practice gap, we established the cluster randomised controlled trial: Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP). Nested in the IFIP trial, this sub-study aims to explore what organisational and clinical barriers and facilitators local implementation teams and clinicians experience when implementing family involvement in mental health care for persons with psychotic disorders. METHODS: We performed 21 semi-structured focus groups, including 75 participants in total. Implementation team members were interviewed at the initial and middle phases of the intervention period, while clinicians who were not in the implementation team were interviewed in the late phase. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with various engagement in the implementation process. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis. RESULTS: Organisational barriers to involvement included: 1) Lack of shared knowledge, perceptions, and practice 2) Lack of routines 3) Lack of resources and logistics. Clinical barriers included: 4) Patient-related factors 5) Relative-related factors 6) Provider-related factors. Organisational facilitators for involvement included: 1) Whole-ward approach 2) Appointed and dedicated roles 3) Standardisation and routines. Clinical facilitators included: 4) External implementation support 5) Understanding, skills, and self-efficacy among mental health professionals 6) Awareness and attitudes among mental health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing family involvement in health care services for persons with psychotic disorders is possible through a whole-ward and multi-level approach, ensured by organisational- and leadership commitment. Providing training in family psychoeducation to all staff, establishing routines to offer a basic level of family involvement to all patients, and ensuring that clinicians get experience with family involvement, reduce or dissolve core barriers. Having access to external implementation support appears decisive to initiate, promote and evaluate implementation. Our findings also point to future policy, practice and implementation developments to offer adequate treatment and support to all patients with severe mental illness and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

Coping, Social Support and Loneliness during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Their Effect on Depression and Anxiety: Patients' Experiences in Community Mental Health Centers in Norway.

Background: Little is known about psychiatric patients' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations of coping strategies, social support and loneliness with mental health symptoms among these patients. Methods: We recruited 164 patients from Community Mental Health Centers in June-July 2020. Participants responded to an online questionnaire on corona-related questions, Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experience, Crisis Support Scale, a 3-item Loneliness Scale, and Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25. We used linear regression models to investigate associations between these and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Results: Almost 51% were aged 31-50 years and 77% were females. Forty-six (28%) participants reported worsened overall mental health due to the pandemic. The reported rates of clinical depression and anxiety were 84% and 76%, respectively. Maladaptive coping was independently associated with both depression and anxiety symptoms. Loneliness was independently associated with depression symptoms. Conclusions: Patients in Community Mental Health Centers in Norway reported high rates of depression and anxiety symptoms. Many of them reported worsening of their mental health due to the pandemic, even at a time when COVID-19 infections and restrictive measures were relatively low. Maladaptive coping strategies and loneliness may be possible explanations for more distress.

Why Service Users Choose Medication-Free Psychiatric Treatment: A Mixed-Method Study of User Accounts.

PURPOSE: Medication has been a central part of treatment for severe mental disorders in Western medicine since the 1950s. In 2015, Norwegian Health Authorities decided that Norwegian health regions must have treatment units devoted to medication-free mental health treatment to enhance service users' freedom of choice. The need for these units has been controversial. The aim of this study was to examine why service users choose medication-free services. This article examines what purpose these units serve in terms of the users' reasons for choosing this service, what is important for them to receive during the treatment, and what factors lay behind their concerns in terms of medication-related views and experiences. METHODS: Questionnaires were answered by 46 participants and 5 participants were interviewed in a mixed-method design integrated with a concurrent triangulation strategy applying thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Negative effects of medications and unavailable alternatives to medication in ordinary health care were important reasons for wanting medication-free treatment. Medication use may conflict with personal values, attitudes, and beliefs. CONCLUSION: This study broadens the understanding of why the demand for separate medication-free units has arisen. The findings may contribute to making medication-free treatment an option in mental health care in general. To this end, clinicians are advised to communicate all treatment alternatives to service users and to be mindful of the effect of power imbalances in their interactions with them.

Family involvement practices for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a cross-sectional fidelity-based study.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is supported by scientific evidence, as well as legal and ethical considerations, and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. This article reports a cross-sectional measurement of the level of implementation of such guidelines in fifteen community mental health centre units in Norway, and presents a novel fidelity scale to measure basic family involvement and support. The aim was to investigate current family involvement practices comprehensively, as a basis for targeted quality improvement. METHODS: We employed three fidelity scales, with 12-14 items, to measure family involvement practices. Items were scored from 1 to 5, where 1 equals no implementation and 5 equals full implementation. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, a non-parametric test, and calculation of interrater reliability for the scales. RESULTS: The mean score was 2.33 on the fidelity scale measuring basic family involvement and support. Among patients with psychotic disorders, only 4% had received family psychoeducation. On the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale, measuring practice and content, the mean score was 2.78. Among the eight units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 4.34. On the general organizational index scale, measuring the organisation and implementation of family psychoeducation, the mean score was 1.78. Among the units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 2.46. As a measure of interrater reliability, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the basic family involvement and support scale, 0.93 for the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale and 0.96 for the general organizational index scale. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation level of the national guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders was generally poor. The quality of family psychoeducation was high, but few patients had received this evidence-based treatment. Our novel fidelity scale shows promising psychometric properties and may prove a useful tool to improve the quality of health services. There is a need to increase the implementation of family involvement practices in Norway, to reach a larger percentage of patients and relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.

Recovery-oriented care: mental health workers' attitudes towards recovery from mental illness.

BACKGROUND: The Recovery Knowledge Inventory (RKI) was developed to operationalise the recovery construct and in turn contribute to moving mental health services towards recovery-oriented practice. This study validated the RKI in a sample of Norwegian mental health care practitioners and examined mental health workers' knowledge of and attitudes towards patient recovery. METHODS: The RKI was translated into Norwegian and tested on 317 mental health workers from 7 primary and 22 specialised mental health care units within a defined geographical area of Norway. RESULTS: Psychometric challenges to the RKI were observed and called into question the previously proposed four-factor structure. The findings of the scale revealed that the study sample scored significantly lower than a comparable sample in a previous study, suggesting that the Norwegian mental health workers have relatively low orientation towards recovery. This finding was especially applicable to the reduction of symptoms and treatment, which the respondents perceived as essential for recovering from mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. CONCLUSIONS: To operationalise the recovery construct, the development of a measure such as the RKI needs further attention. For psychiatric practice to be moved in a more recovery-oriented direction, consensus on what constitutes well-functioning recovery must be reached by patients, practitioners and researchers alike.

Implementation of guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is under-implemented in mental health care, despite its firm scientific, economic, legal and moral basis. This appears to be the case in Norway, despite the presence of national guidelines providing both general recommendations on family involvement and support in the health- and care services, and specific guidance on family interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. The aim of this project is to improve mental health services and the psychosocial health of persons with psychotic disorders and their relatives, by implementing selected recommendations from the national guidelines in community mental health centres, and to evaluate this process. METHODS: The trial is cluster randomised, where 14 outpatient clusters from community mental health centres undergo stratified randomisation with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The seven intervention clusters will receive implementation support for 18 months, whereas the control clusters will receive the same support after this implementation period. The intervention consists of: 1. A basic level of family involvement and support. 2. Family psychoeducation in single-family groups. 3. Training and guidance of health care personnel. 4. A family coordinator and 5. Other implementation measures. Fidelity to the intervention will be measured four times in the intervention arm and two times in the control arm, and the differences in fidelity changes between the arms constitute the primary outcomes. In each arm, we aim to include 161 patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative to fill in questionnaires at inclusion, 6 months and 12 months, measuring psychosocial health and satisfaction with services. Clinicians will contribute clinical data about patients at inclusion and 12 months. Use of health and welfare services and work participation, for both patients and relatives, will be retrieved from national registries. We will also perform qualitative interviews with patients, relatives, health care personnel and leaders. Finally, we will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a political economy analysis. DISCUSSION: This project, with its multilevel and mixed methods approach, may contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of family involvement, mental health service research and implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.

Psychometric Properties of the General Organizational Index (GOI): A Measure of Individualization and Quality Improvement to Complement Program Fidelity.

To assess the implementation of effective practices, mental health programs need standardized measures. The General Organizational Index (GOI), although widely used for this purpose, has received minimal psychometric research. For this study, we assessed psychometric properties of the GOI scale administered four times over 18 months during the implementation of a new program in 11 sites. The GOI scale demonstrated high levels of interrater reliability (.97), agreement between assessors on item ratings (86% overall), internal consistency (.77-.80 at three time points), sensitivity to change, and feasibility. We conclude that the GOI scale has acceptable psychometric properties, and its use may enhance implementation and research on evidence-based mental health practices.Trial registration: REK2015/2169. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03271242.

Improved Rehabilitation Outcomes for Persons With and Without Problematic Substance Use After 2 Years With Assertive Community Treatment-A Prospective Study of Patients With Severe Mental Illness in 12 Norwegian ACT Teams.

Background: Persons with severe mental illness often face difficulties in accessing and receiving adequate services enabling them to live independently. Many have co-occurring substance use problems that increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Community-based service models have been implemented around the world, including assertive community treatment (ACT), but the knowledge of rehabilitation outcomes in different subgroups is limited. We aimed to explore rehabilitation outcomes among patients suffering severe mental illness with and without substance use problems who had received ACT services for at least 2 years. Additionally, we compared differences in changes between the two groups. Methods: A total of 142 patients who received services for 2 years from the first 12 Norwegian ACT teams were included. Eighty-four (59%) had problematic substance use, while 58 (41%) did not. Data regarding housing, activity, symptoms, functioning, and subjective quality of life were collected upon enrollment into ACT and at 2 years of follow-up. Clinician-rated scales and self-report questionnaires were used. Changes within the two groups and differences in change between the groups were assessed using generalized linear mixed models. Results: Both groups were more likely to have good housing, higher level of functioning, and less anxiety and depressive symptoms after 2 years. The odds of good housing among participants with problematic substance use increased only after adjusting for age and gender. Participants with problematic substance use had less severe symptoms, particularly negative and manic symptoms, while participants without problematic substance use reported improved satisfaction with life in general. Neither group experienced a change in having a meaningful daily activity, positive symptoms, practical and social functioning, or subjective quality of life. The reduction of manic symptoms in the substance use group was the only difference between the groups. Conclusion: After 2 years, patients with and without problematic substance use experienced improvements in several important domains. Furthermore, the improvements were similar in both groups for most outcomes. This may suggest that ACT has a place in the continued effort toward integrated and comprehensive community services empowering patients with severe mental illness to achieve and sustain an independent life, including marginalized groups with severe substance use.

Psychometric Properties of a Fidelity Scale for Illness Management and Recovery.

This study examined the psychometric properties and feasibility of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) Fidelity scale. Despite widespread use of the scale, the psychometric properties have received limited attention. Trained fidelity assessors conducted assessments four times over 18 months at 11 sites implementing IMR. The IMR Fidelity scale showed excellent interrater reliability (.99), interrater item agreement (94%), internal consistency (.91-.95 at three time points), and sensitivity to change. Frequency distributions generally showed that item ratings included the entire range. The IMR Fidelity scale has excellent psychometric properties and should be used to evaluate and guide the implementation of IMR.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03271242.

Model fidelity and team members' experiences of assertive community treatment in Norway: a sequential mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an evidence-based treatment for people with severe mental illness, and this model is used widely throughout the world. Given the various adaptations in different contexts, we were interested in studying the implementation and adaptation of the ACT model in Norway. The first 12 Norwegian ACT teams were established between 2009 and 2011, and this study investigated the teams' model fidelity and the team members' experiences of working with ACT. METHODS: To investigate implementation of the ACT model, fidelity assessments were performed 12 and 30 months after the teams started their work using the Tool for Measurement of Assertive Community Treatment (TMACT). Means and standard deviations were used to describe the ACT teams' fidelity scores. Cohen's effect size d was used to assess the changes in TMACT scores from the first to second assessment. Qualitative focus group interviews were conducted in the 12 teams after 30 months to investigate the team members' experiences of working with the ACT model. RESULTS: The fidelity assessments of the Norwegian teams showed high implementation of the structural and organizational parts of the ACT model. The newer parts of the model, the recovery and evidence-based practices, were less implemented. Four of the six subscales in TMACT improved from the first to the second assessment. The team members experienced the ACT model to be a good service model for the target population: people with severe mental illness, significant functional impairment, and continuous high service needs. Team members perceived some parts of the model difficult to implement and that it was challenging to find effective ways to collaborate with existing health and social services. CONCLUSION: The first 12 Norwegian ACT teams implemented the ACT model to a moderate degree. The ACT model could be implemented in Norway without extensive adaptations. Although the team members were satisfied with the ACT model, especially the results for their service users, inclusion of the ACT team to the existing service system was perceived as challenging.

Significance of Leaders for Sustained Use of Evidence-Based Practices: A Qualitative Focus-Group Study with Mental Health Practitioners.

Evidence-based practices that are implemented in mental health services are often challenging to sustain. In this focus-group study, 26 mental health practitioners with high fidelity scores were interviewed regarding their experiences with implementing the illness management and recovery, an evidence-based practice for people with severe mental disorders, in their services and how this could influence further use. Findings indicate that high fidelity is not equivalent to successful implementation. Rather, to sustain the practice in services, the practitioners emphasized the importance of their leaders being positive and engaged in the intervention, and hold clear goals and visions for the intervention in the clinic. In addition, the practitioners' understanding of outcome monitoring as a resource for practice improvement must be improved to avoid random patient experiences becoming the decisive factor in determining further use.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02077829. Registered 25 February 2014.

How to implement Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) in mental health service settings: evaluation of the implementation strategy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation strategy used in the first-phase of implementation of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) programme, an intervention for adults with severe mental illnesses, in nine mental health service settings in Norway. METHODS: A total of 9 clinical leaders, 31 clinicians, and 44 consumers at 9 service settings participated in the implementation of IMR. Implementation was conducted by an external team of researchers and an experienced trainer. Data were gathered on fidelity to the intervention and implementation strategy, feasibility, and consumer outcomes. RESULTS: Although the majority of clinicians scored within the acceptable range of high intervention fidelity, their participation in the implementation strategy appeared to moderate anticipated future use of IMR. No service settings reached high intervention fidelity scores for organizational quality improvement after 12 months of implementation. IMR implementation seemed feasible, albeit with some challenges. Consumer outcomes indicated significant improvements in illness self-management, severity of problems, functioning, and hope. There were nonsignificant positive changes in symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategy appeared adequate to build clinician competence over time, enabling clinicians to provide treatment that increased functioning and hope for consumers. Additional efficient strategies should be incorporated to facilitate organizational change and thus secure the sustainability of the implemented practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02077829. Registered 25 February 2014.

Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS): to measure implementation readiness.

BACKGROUND: Attitudes can be a precursor to the decision of whether or not to try a new practice. In order to tailor the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health settings, we must first consider practitioner attitudes towards EBP adoption. To assess these attitudes, the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was developed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the EBPAS, and to examine differences in attitudes towards implementing EBPs among mental health practitioners. METHODS: The EBPAS was translated into Norwegian and administered to 294 practitioners from seven primary and 22 specialized mental care units within a defined geographical area of Norway. RESULTS: The EBPAS showed good psychometric properties. The less clinical experience the practitioner had, the more positive their attitude toward EBPs. Primary care practitioners reported more positive attitudes towards implementing EBPs that were required of them than specialized care practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian version of the EBPAS is a promising tool for measuring implementation readiness in mental health services, and can be used in clinical practice to tailor implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the regional committees for medical and health research ethics [ REK 2013/2035 ] on 25(th) of May, 2014.

Hospitalisation of severely mentally ill patients with and without problematic substance use before and during Assertive Community Treatment: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Co-occurring substance use increases the risk of hospitalisation in people with severe mental illness, whereas Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) generally reduces hospitalisation in patients with severe mental illness and high inpatient service use. Because the superiority of ACT over standard services amongst patients with problematic substance use is uncertain, the present study examined inpatient service use amongst patients with and without problematic substance use in the 2 years before and the 2 years after they enrolled into ACT teams. METHODS: This naturalistic observational study included 142 patients of 12 different ACT teams throughout Norway. The teams assessed the patients upon enrolment into ACT using clinician-rated and self-reported questionnaires. We obtained hospitalisation data from the Norwegian Patient Register for the 2 years before and the 2 years after enrolment into ACT. We used linear mixed models to assess changes in hospitalisation and to explore associations between problematic substance use and changes in hospitalisation, controlling for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 84 (59%) participants had problematic substance use upon enrolment into the ACT teams. In the 2 years after ACT enrolment both participants with and without problematic substance use experienced a reduction in total inpatient days. Those with problematic substance use also had fewer involuntary inpatient days. Exploratory analyses suggested that symptom severity and functioning level interacted with problematic substance use to influence change in total inpatient days. CONCLUSION: These findings may suggest that ACT teams successfully support people with complex mental health problems in the community, including those with problematic substance use, and thereby contribute to a reduction in inpatient service use.