Background: There is still limited evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI) in Dutch outpatient psychiatric settings. The present study aimed to establish expert consensus on the core components and strategies to optimise practical implementation of a smoking cessation intervention for people treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Design: A modified Delphi method was applied to reach consensus on three core components (behavioural counselling, pharmacological treatment and peer support) of the intervention. The Delphi panel comprised five experts with different professional backgrounds. We proposed a first intervention concept. The panel critically examined the evolving concept in three iterative rounds of 90 min each. Responses were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: Overall, results yielded that behavioural counselling should focus on preparation for smoking cessation, guidance, relapse prevention and normalisation. Pharmacological treatment consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), Varenicline or Bupropion, under supervision of a psychiatrist, was recommended. The panel agreed on integrating peer support as a regular part of the intervention, thus fostering emotional and practical support among patients. Treatment of a co-morbid cannabis use disorder needs to be integrated into the intervention if indicated. Regarding implementation, staff’s motivation to support smoking cessation was considered essential. For each ambulatory team, two mental health care professionals will have a central role in delivering the intervention. Conclusions: This study provides insight into expert consensus on the core components of a smoking cessation intervention for people with SMI. The results of this study were used for the development of a comprehensive smoking cessation program.
DOCUMENT
We tested the effects on problem-solving, anxiety and depression of 12-week group-based self-management cancer rehabilitation, combining comprehensive physical training (PT) and cognitive-behavioural problem-solving training (CBT), compared with PT. We expected that PT + CBT would outperform PT in improvements in problem-solving (Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R)), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and that more anxious and/or depressed participants would benefit most from adding CBT to PT. Cancer survivors (aged 48.8 ± 10.9 years, all cancer types, medical treatment completed) were randomly assigned to PT + CBT (n = 76) or PT (n = 71). Measurement occasions were: before and post-rehabilitation (12 weeks), 3- and 9-month follow-up. A non-randomised usual care comparison group (UCC) (n = 62) was measured at baseline and after 12 weeks. Longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses showed no differential pattern in change between PT + CBT and PT. Post-rehabilitation, participants in PT and PT + CBT reported within-group improvements in problem-solving (negative problem orientation; p < 0.01), anxiety (p < 0.001) and depression (p < 0.001), which were maintained at 3- and 9-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Compared with UCC post-rehabilitation, PT and PT + CBT only improved in anxiety (p < 0.05). CBT did not add to the effects of PT and had no extra benefits for higher distressed participants. PT was feasible and sufficient for durably reducing cancer survivors' anxiety.
DOCUMENT
Research on psychological treatment of depression in inpatients is not conclusive,with some studies finding clear positive effects and other studies finding no significant benefit compared to usual care or structured pharmacotherapy. The results of a meta-analysis investigating how effective psychological treatment is for depressed inpatients are presented. A systematic search in bibliographical databases resulted in 12 studieswith a total of 570 respondents. This set of studies had sufficient statistical power to detect small effect sizes. Psychological treatments had a small (g=0.29), but statistically significant additional effect on depression compared to usual care and structured pharmacological treatments only. This corresponded with a numbersneeded- to-be-treated of 6.17. Heterogeneity was zero inmost analyses, and not significant in all analyses. There wasno indication for significant publication bias. Effectswere not associatedwith characteristics of the population, the interventions and the design of the studies. Although the number of studieswas small, and the quality ofmany studieswas not optimal, it seems safe to conclude that psychological treatments have a small but robust effect on depression in depressed inpatients. More high-quality research is needed to verify these results.
DOCUMENT
