Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings. MAIN RESULTS: The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem which sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies have examined the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2005 and last updated in 2010. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for chest pain, quality of life and psychological parameters in people with non-specific chest pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Issue 4 of 12, 2014 and DARE Issue 2 of 4, 2014), MEDLINE (OVID, 1966 to April week 4 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to week 18 2014), CINAHL (EBSCO, 1982 to April 2014), PsycINFO (OVID, 1887 to April week 5 2014) and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge, 1969 to 2 May 2014). We also searched citation lists and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain (NSCP), atypical chest pain, syndrome X or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. We contacted trial authors for further information about the included RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included two new papers, one of which was an update of a previously included study. Therefore, a total of 17 RCTs with 1006 randomised participants met the inclusion criteria, with the one new study contributing an additional 113 participants. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention: random-effects relative risk = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards: relative risk 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain-free days up to three months following the intervention: mean difference (MD) 3.00 (95% CI 0.23 to 5.77). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects MD -2.26, 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.35 to 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects MD -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Due to the nature of the main interventions of interest, it was impossible to blind the therapists as to whether the participant was in the intervention or control arm. In addition, in three studies the blinding of participants was expressly forbidden by the local ethics committee because of issues in obtaining fully informed consent . For this reason, all studies had a high risk of performance bias. In addition, three studies were thought to have a high risk of outcome bias. In general, there was a low risk of bias in the other domains. However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. The wide variability in secondary outcome measures made it difficult to integrate findings from studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. However, these conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity in many of the results and low numbers of participants in individual studies. The evidence for other brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, 2012, and 2013). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. All relevant randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another preexisting form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge. We found 3 trials with a total of 752 people. Two trials compared a form of CCT called 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) versus standard voluntary care, whereas the third compared Community Treatment Orders with intermittent supervised discharge. CCT was no more likely to result in better service use, social functioning, mental state, or quality of life compared with either standard voluntary or supervised care. However, people receiving CCT were less likely to be victims of crime than those on voluntary care. Further research is indicated into the effects of different types of CCT as these results are based on 3 relatively small trials.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1970s, short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies (STPP) for a broad range of psychological and somatic disorders have been developed and studied. Early published meta-analyses of STPP, using different methods and samples, have yielded conflicting results, although some meta-analyses have consistently supported an empirical basis for STPP. This is an update of a review that was last updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of STPP for adults with common mental disorders compared with wait-list controls, treatments as usual and minimal contact controls in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To specify the differential effects of STPP for people with different disorders (e.g. depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, mixed disorders and personality disorder) and treatment characteristics (e.g. manualised versus non-manualised therapies). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) was searched to February 2014, this register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, DARE and Biological Abstracts (all years to July 2012) and all relevant studies (identified to 2012) were fully incorporated in this review update. We checked references from papers retrieved. We contacted a large group of psychodynamic researchers in an attempt to find new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of adults with common mental disorders, in which a brief psychodynamic therapy lasting 40 or fewer hours in total was provided in individual format. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors working in pairs evaluated studies. We selected studies only if pairs of review authors agreed that the studies met inclusion criteria. We consulted a third review author if two review authors could not reach consensus. Two review authors collected data and entered it into Review Manager software. Two review authors assessed and scored risk of bias. We assessed publication bias using a funnel plot. Two review authors conducted and reviewed subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies of STPP involving 2173 randomised participants with common mental disorders. Studies were of diverse conditions in which problems with emotional regulation were purported to play a causative role albeit through a range of symptom presentations. These studies evaluated STPP for this review's primary outcomes (general, somatic, anxiety and depressive symptom reduction), as well as interpersonal problems and social adjustment. Except for somatic measures in the short-term, all outcome categories suggested significantly greater improvement in the treatment versus the control groups in the short-term and medium-term. Effect sizes increased in long-term follow-up, but some of these effects did not reach statistical significance. A relatively small number of studies (N < 20) contributed data for the outcome categories. There was also significant heterogeneity between studies in most categories, possibly due to observed differences between manualised versus non-manualised treatments, short versus longer treatments, studies with observer-rated versus self report outcomes, and studies employing different treatment models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There has been further study of STPP and it continues to show promise, with modest to large gains for a wide variety of people. However, given the limited data, loss of significance in some measures at long-term follow-up and heterogeneity between studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, variability in treatment delivery and treatment quality may limit the reliability of estimates of effect for STPP. Larger studies of higher quality and with specific diagnoses are warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence (and quality) for distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents. To explore the effects of distraction characteristics (e.g., adult involvement, type of distracter), child age, and study risk of bias on treatment efficacy. METHODS: 26 distraction and 7 hypnosis trials were included and self-report, observer-report, and behavioral pain intensity and distress examined. Distraction studies were coded for 4 intervention characteristics, and all studies coded for child age and study risk of bias. RESULTS: Findings showed strong support for distraction and hypnosis for reducing pain and distress from needle procedures. The quality of available evidence was low, however. Characteristics of distraction interventions, child age, and study risk of bias showed some influence on treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Distraction and hypnosis are efficacious in reducing needle-related pain and distress in children. The quality of trials in this area needs to be improved.

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This review is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Needle-related procedures are a common source of pain and distress for children. Our previous review on this topic indicated that a number of psychological interventions were efficacious in managing pediatric needle pain, including distraction, hypnosis, and combined cognitive behavioural interventions. Considerable additional research in the area has been published since that time. OBJECTIVES: To provide an update to our 2006 review assessing the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: Searches of the following databases were conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Web of Science. Requests for relevant studies were also posted on various electronic list servers. We ran an updated search in March 2012, and again in March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included children and adolescents aged two to 19 years undergoing needle-related procedures. Only RCTs with at least five participants in each study arm comparing a psychological intervention group with a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and a third author helped with data extraction and coding for one non-English study. Included studies were coded for quality using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were computed for all analyses using Review Manager 5.2 software. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials with 3394 participants were included. The most commonly studied needle procedures were venipuncture, intravenous (IV) line insertion, and immunization. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with the most evidence available for children under 12 years of age. Consistent with the original review, the most commonly studied psychological interventions for needle procedures were distraction, hypnosis, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The majority of included studies (19 of 39) examined distraction only. The additional studies from this review update continued to provide strong evidence for the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis. No evidence was available to support the efficacy of preparation and information, combined CBT (at least two or more cognitive or behavioural strategies combined), parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality for reducing children's pain and distress. No conclusions could be drawn about interventions of memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, or distraction plus suggestion, as evidence was available from single studies only. In addition, the Risk of bias scores indicated several domains with high or unclear bias scores (for example, selection, detection, and performance bias) suggesting that the methodological rigour and reporting of RCTs of psychological interventions continue to have considerable room for improvement. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is strong evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents, with no evidence currently available for preparation and information or both, combined CBT, parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality. Additional research is needed to further assess interventions that have only been investigated in one RCT to date (that is, memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, and distraction plus suggestion). There are continuing issues with the quality of trials examining psychological interventions for needle-related pain and distress.

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem that sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies examine the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To update the previously published systematic review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane LIbrary (CENTRAL and DARE) (Issue 3 of 4 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to August Week 5, 2011), CINAHL (1982 to Sept 2011) EMBASE (1980 to Week 35 2011), PsycINFO (1887 to Sept Week 1, 2011), and Biological Abstracts (January 1980 to Sept 2011). We also searched citation lists and approached authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain (NSCP), atypical chest pain, syndrome X, or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. The authors contacted trial authors for further information about the RCTs included. MAIN RESULTS: Six new RCTs were located and added to the existing trials, therefore, a total of 15 RCTs (803 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention; fixed-effect relative risk = 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.81). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards; relative risk = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain free days up to three months following the intervention; mean difference = 2.81 (95% CI 1.28 to 4.34). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects mean difference = -2.26 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects mean difference -0.81 95% CI -2.35, 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects mean difference = -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Overall there was generally a low risk of bias, however, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. Wide variability in outcome measures made integration of studies for secondary outcome measures difficult to report on. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. The evidence for brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Effect of the increase in "alcopops" tax on alcohol-related harms in young people: a controlled interrupted time series.

OBJECTIVE: To measure alcohol-related harms to the health of young people presenting to emergency departments (EDs) of Gold Coast public hospitals before and after the increase in the federal government "alcopops" tax in 2008. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interrupted time series analysis over 5 years (28 April 2005 to 27 April 2010) of 15-29-year-olds presenting to EDs with alcohol-related harms compared with presentations of selected control groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of 15-29-year-olds presenting to EDs with alcohol-related harms compared with (i) 30-49-year-olds with alcohol-related harms, (ii)15-29-year-olds with asthma or appendicitis, and (iii) 15-29-year-olds with any non-alcohol and non-injury related ED presentation. RESULTS: Over a third of 15-29-year-olds presented to ED with alcohol-related conditions, as opposed to around a quarter for all other age groups. There was no significant decrease in alcohol-related ED presentations of 15-29-year-olds compared with any of the control groups after the increase in the tax. We found similar results for males and females, narrow and broad definitions of alcohol-related harms, under-19s, and visitors to and residents of the Gold Coast. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in the tax on alcopops was not associated with any reduction in alcohol-related harms in this population in a unique tourist and holiday region. A more comprehensive approach to reducing alcohol harms in young people is needed.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H). MAIN RESULTS: We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem that sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies examine the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To investigate psychological treatments for non-specific chest pain (NSCP) with normal coronary anatomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2008), CINAHL (1982 to December 2008) EMBASE (1980 to December 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2008), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Biological Abstracts (January 1980 to December 2008). We also searched citation lists and approached authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain, atypical chest pain, syndrome X, or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. The authors contacted trial authors for further information about the RCTs included. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs (484 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention; fixed effects relative risk = 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.81). This was maintained from 3 to 9 months afterwards; relative risk = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain free days up to three months following the intervention; mean difference = 2.81 (95% CI 1.28 to 4.34). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (mean difference = -1.73 (95% CI -2.21 to -1.26)) and severity (mean difference = -6.86 (95% CI -10.74 to -2.97)). However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. Wide variability in outcome measures made integration of studies for secondary outcome measures difficult to report on. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. The evidence for brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Interventions for psychosexual dysfunction in women treated for gynaecological malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Psychosexual dysfunction (sexual difficulties not directly due to physical factors) is known to be a common complication of treatment for gynaecological cancer. It has a considerable impact on quality of life (QoL) for the increasing number of women who are survivors of gynaecological cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for psychosexual dysfunction in women who have been treated for gynaecological malignancy (cancer of uterine cervix, uterine corpus, ovary, vulva). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, up to October 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2008), EMBASE (1982 to October 2008), CINAHL (1980 to October 2008) and PsycINFO (1806 to October 2008). We hand searched reference lists from eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a medical or psychological intervention to prevent or treat psychosexual dysfunction in adult women previously treated for gynaecological cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected five studies for inclusion in this review and analysed any outcome data relating to resumption of sexual intercourse, DSM-IV diagnoses or validated scales of sexual functioning. Sensitivity analysis was performed where possible. MAIN RESULTS: The review included data from 5 studies, comprising a total of 413 patients, examining 5 different interventions. One trial suggested a short-term benefit for the use of vaginal Dienoestrol in women after pelvic radiotherapy (NNT = 4). Another trial suggested a short-term benefit for one regime of low dose-rate brachytherapy over another but this modality is not in widespread use. Studies of a Clinical Nurse Specialist intervention, Psychoeducational Group Therapy and a Couple-Coping intervention, did not show any significant benefit. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence to support the use of any interventions for psychosexual dysfunction in women treated for gynaecological cancer. There is a need for more studies of high methodological quality.

Advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.