RESUMO
Harmful outcomes of psychological interventions are under-researched, including in mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) for psychosis. This systematic review summarizes reporting and prevalence of 8 harm indices (death, adverse events, hospitalisation, study drop out, noncompletion of therapy, side effects of therapy, symptom deterioration and crisis service use) in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of MBIs for psychosis. Meta-analyses of risk differences were also calculated for each harm index. The review included 39 studies, with a total n of 2684 participants across studies. The percentage of studies reporting on each index of harm, and the prevalence of harm, varied greatly across each index. 0% of studies reported on side effects of interventions compared to 92% of studies reporting on study dropout. Meta-analyses of risk differences (RD) found a higher risk of hospitalisation (RD (95% CI) = -0.136 (-0.23 to -0.05), p = 0.003) and crisis service use (RD (95% CI) = -0.160 (-0.299, -0.024), p = 0.02) in control arms compared to intervention arms, and no significant difference in adverse events, death, symptom deterioration, noncompletion of therapy, drop out and side effects of therapy. Overall, reporting of harm was inconsistent across studies and the quality of data collection and reporting varied. MBIs for psychosis appear to be safe and may reduce the risk of hospitalisation and use of crisis services. However, the absence of thorough reporting on harm precludes a balanced analysis of benefits versus harms. Future research into the effectiveness of MBIs should consistently operationalise, monitor and report data on harm.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: International clinical practice guidelines commonly recommend the provision of psychological therapies for psychosis and schizophrenia as an adjunct to medication. However, access to recommended therapies in routine clinical practice is limited. The aim of this review was to synthesise the available data on the provision of recommended psychological therapies for psychosis and schizophrenia across international mental health systems. METHODS: Electronic databases (PsychINFO, Pubmed and EMBASE) were searched for audits, service evaluation projects, or surveys, which reported data on rates of offer or receipt of any recommended psychological therapy or therapeutic intervention as part of routine clinical care. RESULTS: Twenty-two eligible studies from 9 countries were identified (N participants = 79,407). The most commonly recommended therapies in national guidelines were Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) and Family Interventions (FI). The overall pooled prevalence of rate of receipt of CBTp was 24% [95% CI 0.15-0.32] based on 15 studies (N = 42,494), with a higher rate of receipt of therapy found when pooling data from Early Intervention services only (41% [95% CI 0.21-0.60], 6 studies, N = 11,068). The overall pooled prevalence of rate of receipt of FI was 30% [95% CI 0.22-0.37] based on 14 studies (N = 13,863). CONCLUSIONS: Overall rates of receipt of recommended psychological therapies for psychosis were low across the 9 countries data were available for in this review. However, there were high rates of heterogeneity across studies, meaning that pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution. Sources of heterogeneity included different service settings (e.g. early intervention vs. non-early intervention services), and varying methods used to collect the data (e.g. audit of electronic health records vs. self-report etc.). There were no available data from the continents of South America, Asia, or Africa, meaning that a truly global picture of provision of psychological therapies for psychosis and schizophrenia is currently lacking.
