PURPOSE: To investigate factors that influence participation in and needs for work and other daytime activities among individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMI). METHODS: A latent class analysis using routine outcome monitoring data from 1069 patients was conducted to investigate whether subgroups of individuals with SMI can be distinguished based on participation in work or other daytime activities, needs for care in these areas, and the differences between these subgroups. RESULTS: Four subgroups could be distinguished: (1) an inactive group without daytime activities or paid employment and many needs for care in these areas; (2) a moderately active group with some daytime activities, no paid employment, and few needs for care; (3) an active group with more daytime activities, no paid employment, and mainly met needs for care; and (4) a group engaged in paid employment without needs for care in this area. Groups differed significantly from each other in age, duration in MHC, living situation, educational level, having a life partner or not, needs for care regarding social contacts, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, and psychiatric symptoms. Differences were not found for clinical diagnosis or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with SMI, different subgroups can be distinguished based on employment situation, daytime activities, and needs for care in these areas. Subgroups differ from each other on patient characteristics and each subgroup poses specific challenges, underlining the need for tailored rehabilitation interventions. Special attention is needed for individuals who are involuntarily inactive, with severe psychiatric symptoms and problems in psychosocial functioning.
MULTIFILE
Background: People with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) have difficulty participating in society through work or other daily activities. Aims: To establish the effectiveness with which the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) improves the level of social participation in people with SMIs, in the Netherlands. Method: In a randomized controlled trial involving 188 people with SMIs, we compared BPR (n = 98) with an Active Control Condition (ACC, n = 90) (Trial registration ISRCTN88987322). Multilevel modeling was used to study intervention effects over two six-month periods. The primary outcome measure was level of social participation, expressed as having participated in paid or unpaid employment over the past six months, as the total hours spent in paid or unpaid employment, and as the current level of social participation. Secondary outcome measures were clients’ views on rehabilitation goal attainment, Quality of Life (QOL), personal recovery, self-efficacy, and psychosocial functioning. Results: During the study, social participation, QOL, and psychosocial functioning improved in patients in both groups. However, BPR was not more effective than ACC on any of the outcomes. Better social participation was predicted by previous work experience and a lower intensity of psychiatric symptoms. Conclusions: While ACC was as effective as BPR in improving the social participation of individuals with SMIs, much higher percentages of participants in our sample found (paid) work or other meaningful activities than in observational studies without specific support for social participation. This suggests that focused rehabilitation efforts are beneficial, irrespective of the specific methodology used.
DOCUMENT
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) compared to an active control condition (ACC) to increase the social participation (in competitive employment, unpaid work, education, and meaningful daily activities) of individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). ACC can be described as treatment as usual but with an active component, namely the explicit assignment of providing support with rehabilitation goals in the area of social participation. Method: In a randomized clinical trial with 188 individuals with SMIs, BPR (n = 98) was compared to ACC (n=90). Costs were assessed with the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TIC-P). Outcome measures for the cost-effectiveness analysis were incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost per proportional change in social participation. Budget Impact was investigated using four implementation scenarios and two costing variants. Results: Total costs per participant at 12-month follow-up were e 12,886 in BPR and e 12,012 in ACC, a non-significant difference. There were no differences with regard to social participation or QALYs. Therefore, BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. Types of expenditure with the highest costs were in order of magnitude: supported and sheltered housing, inpatient care, outpatient care, and organized activities. Estimated budget impact of wide BPR implementation ranged from cost savings to e190 million, depending on assumptions regarding uptake. There were no differences between the two costing variants meaning that from a health insurer perspective, there would be no additional costs if BPR was implemented on a wider scale in mental health care institutions. Conclusions: This was the first study to investigate BPR cost-effectiveness and budget impact. The results showed that BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. When interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of BPR was investigated in the area of social participation, while BPR was designed to offer support in all rehabilitation areas. Therefore, more studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the method as a whole.
DOCUMENT
IMPORTANCE People with a severe mental illness (SMI) have a life expectancy reduced by 10 to 20 years compared with the general population, primarily attributable to cardiometabolic disorders. Lifestyle interventions for people with SMI can improve health and reduce cardiometabolic risk. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of a group-based lifestyle intervention among people with SMI in outpatient treatment settings compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial performed in 8 mental health care centers with 21 flexible assertive community treatment teams in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria were SMI, age of 18 years or older, and body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 27 or greater. Data were collected from January 2018 to February 2020, and data were analyzed from September 2020 to February 2023. INTERVENTIONS Weekly 2-hour group sessions for 6 months followed by monthly 2-hour group sessions for another 6 months, delivered by trained mental health care workers. The intervention targeted overall lifestyle changes, emphasizing establishing a healthy diet and promoting physical activity. TAU (control) did not include structured interventions or advice on lifestyle. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Crude and adjusted linear mixed models and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. The main outcome was body weight change. Secondary outcomes included changes in body mass index, blood pressure, lipid profiles, fasting glucose level, quality of life, self-management ability, and lifestyle behaviors (physical activity and health, mental health, nutrition, and sleep). RESULTS The study population included 11 lifestyle intervention teams (126 participants) and 10 TAU teams (98 participants). Of 224 included patients, 137 (61.2%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (11.1) years. From baseline to 12 months, participants in the lifestyle intervention group lost 3.3 kg (95%CI, −6.2 to −0.4) more than those in the control group. In the lifestyle intervention group, people with high attendance rates lost more weight than participants with medium and low rates (mean [SD] weight loss: high, −4.9 [8.1] kg; medium, −0.2 [7.8] kg; low, 0.8 [8.3] kg). Only small or no changes were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, the lifestyle intervention significantly reduced weight from baseline to 12 months in overweight and obese adults with SMI. Tailoring lifestyle interventions and increasing attendance rates might be beneficial for people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR6837
DOCUMENT
volgt
LINK
Aim: Aim of this study was to provide insight into the costs associated with severe mental illnesses from a societal perspective. Insight into expenses is of value to policymakers and mental health institutions that are dealing with ongoing budget cuts. A reliable cost estimate is also necessary to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions and make decisions on reimbursement. Methods: Baseline costs were calculated for 188 individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) who wish to increase their societal participation defined as paid or unpaid work, education and meaningful daily activities. Costs were measured from a societal perspective by means of the TIC-P questionnaire and expressed in Euros.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verified by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical fitness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efficacy at 12 months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of effective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and efectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verifed by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical ftness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efcacy at 12months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of efective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.
DOCUMENT
Background: Increasing attention to palliative care for the general population has led to the development of various evidence-based or consensus-based tools and interventions. However, specific tools and interventions are needed for people with severe mental illness (SMI) who have a life-threatening illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific evidence on tools and interventions in palliative care for this group. Methods: Systematic searches were done in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases, supplemented by reference tracking, searches on the internet with free text terms, and consultations with experts to identify relevant literature. Empirical studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs concerning tools and interventions for use in palliative care for people with SMI were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal instrument for heterogeneous study designs. Stepwise study selection and the assessment of methodological quality were done independently by two review authors. Results: Four studies were included, reporting on a total of two tools and one multi-component intervention. One study concerned a tool to identify the palliative phase in patients with SMI. This tool appeared to be usable only in people with SMI with a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, two related studies focused on a tool to involve people with SMI in discussions about medical decisions at the end of life. This tool was assessed as feasible and usable in the target group. One other study concerned the Dutch national Care Standard for palliative care, including a multicomponent intervention. The Palliative Care Standard also appeared to be feasible and usable in a mental healthcare setting, but required further tailoring to suit this specific setting. None of the included studies investigated the effects of the tools and interventions on quality of life or quality of care. Conclusions: Studies of palliative care tools and interventions for people with SMI are scarce. The existent tools and intervention need further development and should be tailored to the care needs and settings of these people. Further research is needed on the feasibility, usability and effects of tools and interventions for palliative care for people with SMI.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Several interventions have been developed to improve physical health and lifestyle behaviour of people with a severe mental illness (SMI). Recently, we conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial which evaluated the efects of the one-year Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) lifestyle intervention compared with usual care in clients with SMI. The SMILE intervention is a 12-month group-based lifestyle intervention with a focus on increased physical activity and healthy food intake. The aim of the current study was to explore the experiences of people with SMI and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding implementation feasibility of the SMILE intervention and the fdelity to the SMILE intervention. Methods: A process evaluation was conducted alongside the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The experiences of clients and HCPs in the lifestyle intervention group were studied. First, descriptive data on the implementation of the intervention were collected. Next, semi-structured interviews with clients (n=15) and HCPs (n=13) were performed. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed using MAXQDA software. In addition, observations of group sessions were performed to determine the fdelity to the SMILE intervention using a standardised form. Results: Ten out of 26 HCPs who conducted the group sessions discontinued their involvement with the intervention, primarily due to changing jobs. 98% of all planned group sessions were performed. Four main themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Positive appraisal of the SMILE intervention, 2) Suggestions for improvement of the SMILE intervention 3) Facilitators of implementation and 4) Barriers of implementation. Both clients and HCPs had positive experiences regarding the SMILE intervention. Clients found the intervention useful and informative. The intervention was found suitable and interesting for all people with SMI, though HCPs sometimes had to tailor the intervention to individual characteristics of patients (e.g., with respect to cognitive functioning). The handbook of the SMILE intervention was perceived as user-friendly and helpful by HCPs. Combining SMILE with daily tasks, no support from other team members, and lack of staf and time were experienced as barriers for the delivery of the intervention Conclusion: The SMILE intervention was feasible and well-perceived by clients and HCPs. However, we also identifed some aspects that may have hindered efective implementation and needs to be considered when implementing the SMILE intervention in daily practice
DOCUMENT
