Oral health education (advice and training) for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness not only experience an erosion of functioning in day-to-day life over a protracted period of time, but evidence also suggests that they have a greater risk of experiencing oral disease and greater oral treatment needs than the general population. Poor oral hygiene has been linked to coronary heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory disease and impacts on quality of life, affecting everyday functioning such as eating, comfort, appearance, social acceptance, and self esteem. Oral health, however, is often not seen as a priority in people suffering with serious mental illness. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (5 November 2015), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1358 participants. None of the studies provided useable data for the key outcomes of not having seen a dentist in the past year, not brushing teeth twice a day, chronic pain, clinically important adverse events, and service use. Data for leaving the study early and change in plaque index scores were provided. Oral health education compared with standard careWhen 'oral health education' was compared with 'standard care', there was no clear difference between the groups for numbers leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 50, RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.24, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect was found. Although this was statistically significant and favoured the intervention group, it is unclear if it was clinically important (1 RCT, n = 40, MD - 0.50 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.38, very low quality evidence).These limited data may have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Motivational interview + oral health education compared with oral health educationSimilarly, when 'motivational interview + oral health education' was compared with 'oral health education', there was no clear difference for the outcome of leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60 RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect favouring the intervention group was found (1 RCT, n = 56, MD - 0.60 95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.18 very low-quality evidence). These limited, clinically opaque data may or may not have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Monitoring compared with no monitoringFor this comparison, only data for leaving the study early were available. We found a difference in numbers leaving early, favouring the 'no monitoring' group (1 RCT, n = 1682, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence). However, these data are problematic. The control denominator is implied and not clear, and follow-up did not depend only on individual participants, but also on professional caregivers and organisations - the latter changing frequently resulting in poor follow-up, but not a good reflection of the acceptability of the monitoring to patients. For this comparison, no data were available for 'no clinically important change in plaque index'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from trials that oral health advice helps people with serious mental illness in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes. It makes sense to follow guidelines and recommendations such as those put forward by the British Society for Disability and Oral Health working group until better evidence is generated. Pioneering trialists have shown that evaluative studies relevant to oral health advice for people with serious mental illness are possible.

Treatments for delusional disorder.

BACKGROUND: Delusional disorder is commonly considered to be difficult to treat. Antipsychotic medications are frequently used and there is growing interest in a potential role for psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of delusional disorder. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of medication (antipsychotic medication, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) and psychotherapy, in comparison with placebo in delusional disorder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatments in delusional disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors extracted data independently for the one eligible trial. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis with a fixed-effect model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again with a fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of bias of the included study and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised trial met our inclusion criteria, despite our initial search yielding 141 citations. This was a small study, with 17 people completing a trial comparing CBT to an attention placebo (supportive psychotherapy) for people with delusional disorder. Most participants were already taking medication and this was continued during the trial. We were not able to include any randomised trials on medications of any type due to poor data reporting, which left us with no usable data for these trials. For the included study, usable data were limited, risk of bias varied and the numbers involved were small, making interpretation of data difficult. In particular there were no data on outcomes such as global state and behaviour, nor any information on possible adverse effects.A positive effect for CBT was found for social self esteem using the Social Self-Esteem Inventory (1 RCT, n = 17, MD 30.5, CI 7.51 to 53.49, very low quality evidence), however this is only a measure of self worth in social situations and may thus not be well correlated to social function. More people left the study early if they were in the supportive psychotherapy group with 6/12 leaving early compared to 1/6 from the CBT group, but the difference was not significant (1 RCT, n = 17, RR 0.17, CI 0.02 to 1.18, moderate quality evidence). For mental state outcomes the results were skewed making interpretation difficult, especially given the small sample. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite international recognition of this disorder in psychiatric classification systems such as ICD-10 and DSM-5, there is a paucity of high quality randomised trials on delusional disorder. There is currently insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations for treatments of any type for people with delusional disorder. The limited evidence that we found is not generalisable to the population of people with delusional disorder. Until further evidence is found, it seems reasonable to offer treatments which have efficacy in other psychotic disorders. Further research is needed in this area and could be enhanced in two ways: firstly, by conducting randomised trials specifically for people with delusional disorder and, secondly, by high quality reporting of results for people with delusional disorder who are often recruited into larger studies for people with a variety of psychoses.

Exit examination: a survey of UK psychiatrists' views.

Aims and method The Royal College of Psychiatrists is considering how best to introduce a post-MRCPsych-examination assessment ('exit examination') in anticipation of external pressures to ensure patient safety through the use of such assessments. The Psychiatric Trainees' Committee conducted an online survey to gather the views of psychiatrists regarding the possible format and content of this examination in the hope that this information can be used to design a satisfactory assessment. Results Of the 2082 individuals who started the survey, 1735 completed all sections (83.3%). Participants included consultants and trainees from a range of subspecialties. There was general agreement that the content and structure of the exit examination should include assessment of clinical and communication skills. Clinical implications UK psychiatrists believe that an exit assessment should focus on clinical and communication skills. It should assess both generic and subspecialty-specific competencies and incorporate a mixture of assessment techniques.

Performance on the continuous performance test under parametric increase of working memory load in schizophrenia.

We asked 24 schizophrenia patients and 24 healthy comparison subjects to complete a parametric working memory version of the continuous performance test. Patients exhibited a relatively rapid performance decline with increasing working memory demands. We suggest an interaction between sustained attention and working memory abnormalities in schizophrenia.

Oral health advice for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness experience an erosion of functioning in day-to-day life over a protracted period of time. There is also evidence to suggest that people with serious mental illness have a greater risk of experiencing oral disease and have greater oral treatment needs than the general population. However, oral health has never been seen as a priority in people suffering with serious mental illness. Poor oral health has a serious impact on quality of life, everyday functioning, social inclusion and self-esteem. We feel that oral healthcare advice could have a positive impact on this disadvantaged population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of oral health advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2009) which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised clinical trials focusing on oral health advice versus standard care or comparing oral health advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors (GT, AC, WK) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals should be more proactive in liaising with oral health professionals in developing novel ways to cater for the needs of people with serious mental illness.

Is facial emotion recognition impairment in schizophrenia identical for different emotions? A signal detection analysis.

Patients with schizophrenia have difficulty recognising the emotion that corresponds to a given facial expression. According to signal detection theory, two separate processes are involved in facial emotion perception: a sensory process (measured by sensitivity which is the ability to distinguish one facial emotion from another facial emotion) and a cognitive decision process (measured by response criterion which is the tendency to judge a facial emotion as a particular emotion). It is uncertain whether facial emotion recognition deficits in schizophrenia are primarily due to impaired sensitivity or response bias. In this study, we hypothesised that individuals with schizophrenia would have both diminished sensitivity and different response criteria in facial emotion recognition across different emotions compared with healthy controls. Twenty-five individuals with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia were compared with age and IQ matched healthy controls. Participants performed a "yes-no" task by indicating whether the 88 Ekman faces shown briefly expressed one of the target emotions in three randomly ordered runs (happy, sad and fear). Sensitivity and response criteria for facial emotion recognition was calculated as d-prime and In(beta) respectively using signal detection theory. Patients with schizophrenia showed diminished sensitivity (d-prime) in recognising happy faces, but not faces that expressed fear or sadness. By contrast, patients exhibited a significantly less strict response criteria (In(beta)) in recognising fearful and sad faces. Our results suggest that patients with schizophrenia have a specific deficit in recognising happy faces, whereas they were more inclined to attribute any facial emotion as fearful or sad.