Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting.

BACKGROUND: Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects. METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach-frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness -participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering-data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities-methods to finalise priorities. RESULTS: In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research. CONCLUSION: Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

Naturalistic outcomes of community treatment orders: antipsychotic long-acting injections versus oral medication.

BACKGROUND: Community treatment orders (CTOs) are initiated to compel the patient in the community to take part in a management plan, of which medication is often a part. CTOs were introduced in 2008, in England and Wales. We evaluated naturalistic outcomes of CTOs, according to the antipsychotic formulation prescribed at CTO initiation. METHODS: A cohort study with prospective consecutive sampling and 1-year follow-up was conducted in a large mental health trust in South London. Measures included: demographics, psychotropics and CTO outcomes. Comparison groups were long-acting injection (LAI) versus oral formulations only, for the primary outcomes of time to CTO cessation in days and time to first hospital admission in days, whilst the CTO remained active. RESULTS: For the 188 included patients, the CTO ceased within 1 year, either due to revocation (22.3%), discharge (28.1%) or lapse (19.7%). The CTO was renewed at 6 months for 92 (48.9%) patients, and then 56 (29.8%) were renewed again at 12 months. The antipsychotic formulation at CTO initiation was more likely to be LAI (60.6%) than oral (39.4%). Time to CTO cessation was longer for LAI than oral (median 251 versus 182 days, p = 0.030). A total of 54 patients experienced at least one admission; there was no difference between groups by drug formulation (oral 28.4% versus LAI 28.9%, p = 0.933). The mean time to first admission was 147.1 days and did not differ by formulation. CONCLUSIONS: CTO duration was longer for those prescribed an antipsychotic LAI at CTO initiation, although the time to first admission and number of admissions did not differ between groups. CTOs not only compel treatment, but bind services to the patient, resulting in more intensive follow up. Whether enhanced treatment, via oral or LAI and enabled by the CTO, translates into improved clinical outcomes is yet to be determined.

Increased use of antipsychotic long-acting injections with community treatment orders.

BACKGROUND: Community treatment orders (CTOs) are increasingly being used, despite a weak evidence base, and problems continue regarding Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) certification of medication. AIMS: The aim of the current study was to describe current CTO usage regarding patient characteristics, prescribed medication and CTO conditions. METHOD: A 1-year prospective cohort study with consecutive sampling was conducted for all patients whose CTO was registered in a large mental health trust. Only the first CTO for each patient was included. Measures included sociodemographic variables, psychiatric diagnosis, CTO date of initiation and conditions, psychotropic medication and date of SOAD certification for medication. This study was conducted in the first year of CTO legislation in England and Wales. RESULTS: A total of195 patients were sampled (mean age 40.6 years, 65% male, 52% black ethnic origin). There was significant geographical variability in rates of CTO use (χ(2) = 11.3, p = 0.012). A total of 53% had their place of residence specified as a condition and 29% were required to allow access into their homes. Of those with schizophrenia, 64% were prescribed an antipsychotic long-acting injection (LAI). Of the total group, 7% received high-dose antipsychotics, 10% were prescribed two antipsychotics and only 15% received SOAD certification in time. CONCLUSIONS: There was geographical and ethnic variation in CTO use but higher rates of hospital detention in minority ethnic groups may be contributory. Most patients were prescribed antipsychotic LAIs and CTO conditions may not follow the least restrictive principle.