Illness management and recovery: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in Danish community mental health centers: long-term effects on clinical and personal recovery.

BACKGROUND: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery. METHOD: Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01361698 ).

Illness management and recovery: Clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial in community mental health centers.

OBJECTIVE: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach. The program has been evaluated in different settings; however evidence for the effects of IMR is still deficient. The aim of this trial was to investigate the benefits and harms of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual in Danish patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: The trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, multi-center, clinical trial investigating the IMR program compared with usual treatment. 198 people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder participated. The primary outcome was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F) at the end of intervention and the secondary and explorative outcomes included severity of symptoms and service utilization. RESULTS: IMR had no significant effect on functioning, symptoms, substance use or service utilization. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial contributes to the evidence base of IMR by providing a methodological solid base for its conclusions; however the trial has some important limitations. More research is needed to get a firm answer on the effectiveness of the IMR.

Coteaching Recovery to Mental Health Care Professionals.

In 2010, the Regional Council of the Capital Region of Denmark endorsed a vision of mental health services based on personal recovery, rehabilitation, and the involvement of caregivers. Programs to achieve this vision include hiring peer support workers, a Recovery College, and service user participation at the organizational level. This column describes a cornerstone of these initiatives-an education program in the recovery model for mental health professionals. In 2013-2014, the Capital Region implemented 148 workshops on recovery-oriented services for all practitioner staff in mental health services in the region. The workshops featured a coteaching model, with both a mental health professional and an individual with lived experience serving as trainers. This model showed promise and should be expanded, including more targeted training for specific services. Such an expansion could be included in a national strategy for user involvement and recovery-oriented practice set to launch in 2018.

Participants' and staffs' evaluation of the Illness Management and Recovery program: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychoeducational interventions for people with severe mental illness are developed to enable them to manage their illness effectively to improve prognosis and recovery. AIM: The aim was to investigate the benefits and harms of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program among people with severe mental illness in Denmark. IMR builds among other approaches on a psychoeducational approach. METHODS: A randomized, multi-center, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual among 198 participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder investigating outcomes related to illness self-management assessed by the IMR scale, recovery, hope and participants' satisfaction at the end of the 9 months intervention period. RESULTS: No statistical differences were seen between the two groups regarding illness self-management, hope, recovery, or satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IMR appears not to be better than treatment as usual in any of the outcomes. Further studies with a longer follow-up period, better assessments of recovery and a systematic review of the existing trials are needed to assess if the program is effective.

Staff attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: Stigmatizing attitudes have been reported in international studies among staff in psychiatry. The authors wanted to investigate if this was the case in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey of attitudes among staff at two psychiatric units in Copenhagen was performed using the Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes scales. The scales have 16 questions to which another four questions were added by the authors. RESULTS: A total of 548 staff members answered the questions (61 doctors and 487 other professionals). The majority of the respondents believed in the possibility of recovery for patients and only a minority associated a high degree of dangerousness with schizophrenia. The cause of the illness was mainly regarded as being biological, but all agreed to a bio-psycho-social aetiological approach. The majority of the respondents believed that the illness was chronic and agreed on the need for staff to also be aware of patients' somatic illness. The doctors did not question their role as "real doctors" or the scientific basis for psychiatry. The majority would not mind working with a colleague with schizophrenia, but about half would hesitate to disclose if they themselves were diagnosed with the illness. Being a woman working in community psychiatry with long experience and participation in a recovery educational programme was associated with less stigmatizing attitudes. CONCLUSION: The survey showed a relatively low level of stigmatizing attitudes. This runs counter to the results from international investigation. This trend could be interpreted both as a result of a shift towards a more recovery-oriented approach to treatment as well as a reflection of political correctness.

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.

Non-compliance in community psychiatry: failed appointments in the referral system to psychiatric outpatient treatment.

Knowledge about the drop-out pattern of psychiatric patients in the referral phase for outpatient treatment is limited. The aim of the present study was to investigate the importance of selected psychiatric, demographic and administrative parameters in this matter. In a newly opened community psychiatric unit with an open referral system, available relevant data concerning the referred patients were gathered over a 6-month period. Of the 137 patients included in the study, 32% did not show up for their first appointment. On making further attempts to contact the patients, the drop-out frequency dropped to 16%, demonstrating that it is worthwhile offering new appointments to the patients who do not show up. There was no demonstrable relation between the time the patients had waited for the first appointment with a psychiatrist and the drop-out frequency. For patients who had been referred with a diagnosis of psychosis (F 20-29, WHO criteria), or addiction, or had been previously admitted to psychiatric hospital, there was a significant increase in the drop-out rate.