Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Application of SCOPE-C to Measure Social Inclusion Among Mental Health Services Users in Hong Kong.

This study describes the construction of the Chinese version of the Social and Communities Opportunities Profile (SCOPE), henceforth, the SCOPE-C, to measure social inclusion among mental health services users in Hong Kong. The SCOPE-C was developed based on concept-mapping and benchmarking of census questions. The questionnaire consisted of 56 items, went through a standardized linguistic validation process and was pilot tested with qualitative feedback from five users of mental health services. Altogether 168 Chinese service users were recruited through various NGO mental health services to have three times face-to-face interview between October 2013 and July 2014. Results indicated that items related to satisfaction with opportunities and perceived opportunities in various social domains had high consistency. Nearly all the Kappa statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients between the baseline and two rounds of re-test were significant. The SCOPE-C was considered a valid instrument for Hong Kong mental health user population.

Mental health social work and nursing in the USA and the UK: divergent paths coming together?

BACKGROUND: When the mental health systems of the UK and the USA are compared, one of the most striking differences is that social workers are the largest professional group in the USA and community nurses the largest in the UK. AIM AND METHOD: This paper examines the history of the development of both professional groups in both countries, and their education and training. RESULTS: Demand, supply and economic factors are important influences and reasons for these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both professions have critical future workforce roles, but further consideration needs to be given to the extent to which their skills and values overlap in order to inform future workforce planning, and to reduce the extent to which the workforce pattern in both countries risks being over-determined by supply issues.

Measuring access to social capital: the validity and reliability of the Resource Generator-UK and its association with common mental disorder.

Resource generators measure an individual's access to social resources within their social network. They can facilitate the analysis of how access to these resources may assist recovery from illness. As these instruments are culture and context dependent different versions need to be validated for different populations. Further, they are yet to be subjected to a thorough content validation and their reliability and validity have not been established beyond an examination of their internal scales. This paper reports the validity and reliability of a version suitable for general population use in the UK. Firstly, a qualitative process of item selection and review through focus groups and an expert panel ensured that the resource items were relevant. Also, cognitive interviews identified any significant problems prior to extensive piloting. Then we examined its internal domains using Mokken scaling in a small general population survey (n=295). Its concurrent validity with a similar instrument was tested in a further pilot (n=335) and these findings were supported by a known-group validity study (n=65). Its reliability was established in a test-retest study (n=47) in addition to an examination of the reliability coefficients of the internal scales. We found that the Resource Generator-UK has good psychometric properties, though there is some variation in performance between items and scales. Further, we found an inverse relationship with common mental disorder in the second pilot we undertook.