The treatment relationship in peer-based and regular case management for clients with severe mental illness. Serving street-dwelling individuals with psychiatric disabilities: outcomes of a psychiatric rehabilitation clinical trial. Evaluation of a mental health treatment court with assertive community treatment. A randomized trial of treatment options for alcohol-abusing workers. The REACT study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatment in north London. Psychiatric hospital versus community treatment: the results of a randomised trial. Assessing the New York City involuntary outpatient commitment pilot program. Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial. Comparing the impact of standard and abbreviated treatment in a therapeutic community. Findings from the district of Columbia treatment initiative experiment.
This study compared the quality of treatment relationships and engagement in peer-based and regular case management. It also assessed the value of positive relationship qualities in predicting motivation for and use of community-based services for persons with severe mental illness.
                One hundred thirty-seven adults with severe mental illness participated in a 2x2 prospective longitudinal randomized clinical trial with two levels of case management intervention (peer and regular) and two interviews (six and 12 months). Self-report questionnaires assessed treatment relationships, motivation, and service use, and providers rated participants' initial engagement and monthly attendance in treatment.
                Participants perceived higher positive regard, understanding, and acceptance from peer providers rather than from regular providers at six months only, with initially unengaged clients showing more contacts with case managers in the peer condition and decreasing contacts in the regular condition. Six-month positive regard and understanding positively predicted 12-month treatment motivation for psychiatric, alcohol, and drug use problems and attendance at Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
                Early in treatment, peer providers may possess distinctive skills in communicating positive regard, understanding, and acceptance to clients and a facility for increasing treatment participation among the most disengaged, leading to greater motivation for further treatment and use of peer-based community services. Findings strongly suggest that peer providers serve a valued role in quickly forging therapeutic connections with persons typically considered to be among the most alienated from the health care service system. This study tested a psychiatric rehabilitation approach for organizing and delivering services to street-dwelling persons with severe mental illness.
                Street-dwelling persons with severe mental illness were randomly assigned to the experimental program (called Choices) or to standard treatment in New York City. We assessed study participants at baseline and at 6-month intervals over 24 months, using measures of service use, quality of life, health, mental health, and social psychological status. The average deviation from baseline summary statistic was employed to assess change.
                Compared with persons in standard treatment (n = 77), members of the experimental group (n = 91) were more likely to attend a day program (53% vs 27%), had less difficulty in meeting their basic needs, spent less time on the streets (55% vs 28% reduction), and spent more time in community housing (21% vs 9% increase). They showed greater improvement in life satisfaction and experienced a greater reduction in psychiatric symptoms.
                With an appropriate service model, it is possible to engage disaffiliated populations, expand their use of human services, and improve their housing conditions, quality of life, and mental health status. Without active engagement, many adults with serious mental illnesses remain untreated in the community and commit criminal offenses, resulting in their placement in the jails rather than mental health facilities. A mental health treatment court (MHTC) with an assertive community treatment (ACT) model of case management was developed through the cooperative efforts of the criminal justice and mental health systems. Participants were 235 adults with a serious mental illness who were booked into the county jail, and who volunteered for the study. An experimental design was used, with participants randomly assigned to MHTC or treatment as usual (TAU), consisting of adversarial criminal processing and less intensive mental health treatment. Results were reported for 6 and 12 month follow-up periods. Clients in both conditions improved in life satisfaction, distress, and independent living, while participants in the MHTC also showed reductions in substance abuse and new criminal activity. Outcomes are interpreted within the context of changes brought about in the community subsequent to implementation of the MHTC.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Employee-assistance programs sponsored by companies or labor unions identify workers who abuse alcohol and refer them for care, often to inpatient rehabilitation programs. Yet the effectiveness of inpatient treatment, as compared with a variety of less intensive alternatives, has repeatedly been called into question. In this study, anchored in the work site, we compared the effectiveness of mandatory in-hospital treatment with that of required attendance at the meetings of a self-help group and a choice of treatment options.
                We randomly assigned a series of 227 workers newly identified as abusing alcohol to one of three rehabilitation regimens: compulsory inpatient treatment, compulsory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and a choice of options. Inpatient backup was provided if needed. The groups were compared in terms of 12 job-performance variables and 12 measures of drinking and drug use during a two-year follow-up period.
                All three groups improved, and no significant differences were found among the groups in job-related outcome variables. On seven measures of drinking and drug use, however, we found significant differences at several follow-up assessments. The hospital group fared best and that assigned to AA the least well; those allowed to choose a program had intermediate outcomes. Additional inpatient treatment was required significantly more often (P less than 0.0001) by the AA group (63 percent) and the choice group (38 percent) than by subjects assigned to initial treatment in the hospital (23 percent). The differences among the groups were especially pronounced for workers who had used cocaine within six months before study entry. The estimated costs of inpatient treatment for the AA and choice groups averaged only 10 percent less than the costs for the hospital group because of their higher rates of additional treatment.
                Even for employed problem drinkers who are not abusing drugs and who have no serious medical problems, an initial referral to AA alone or a choice of programs, although less costly than inpatient care, involves more risk than compulsory inpatient treatment and should be accompanied by close monitoring for signs of incipient relapse. To compare outcomes of care from assertive community treatment teams with care by community mental health teams for people with serious mental illnesses.
                Non-blind randomised controlled trial.
                Two inner London boroughs.
                251 men and women under the care of adult secondary mental health services with recent high use of inpatient care and difficulties engaging with community services.
                Treatment from assertive community treatment team (127 participants) or continuation of care from community mental health team (124 participants).
                Primary outcome was inpatient bed use 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, social function, client satisfaction, and engagement with services.
                No significant differences were found in inpatient bed use (median difference 1, 95% confidence interval -16 to 38) or in clinical or social outcomes for the two treatment groups. Clients who received care from the assertive community treatment team seemed better engaged (adapted homeless engagement acceptance schedule: difference in means 1.1, 1.0 to 1.9), and those who agreed to be interviewed were more satisfied with services (adapted client satisfaction questionnaire: difference in means 7.14, 0.9 to 13.4).
                Community mental health teams are able to support people with serious mental illnesses as effectively as assertive community treatment teams, but assertive community treatment may be better at engaging clients and may lead to greater satisfaction with services. One hundred and twenty patients presenting for admission were randomly allocated into two groups. Controls received standard hospital care and after-care. Projects were not admitted if this could be avoided; instead they and their relatives were provided with comprehensive community treatment and a 24-hour crisis service. Patients with a primary diagnosis of alcohol or drug dependence, organic brain disorder or mental retardation were excluded. During the 12 months study period, 96% of controls were admitted, 51% more than once. Of the projects, 60% were not admitted at all and only 8% were admitted more than once. Controls spent an average of 53.5 days in psychiatric hospitals; projects spent an average of 8.4 days. Community treatment did not increase the burden upon the community, was considered to be significantly more satisfactory and helpful by patients and their relatives, achieved a clinically superior outcome, and cost less than standard care and after-care. The study evaluated the effectiveness of a three-year outpatient commitment pilot program established in 1994 at Bellevue Hospital in New York City.
                A total of 142 participants were randomly assigned; 78 received court-ordered treatment, which included enhanced services, and 64 received the enhanced-service package only. Between 57 and 68 percent of the subjects completed interviews at one, five, and 11 months after hospital discharge. Outcome measures included rehospitalization, arrest, quality of life, symptomatology, treatment noncompliance, and perceived level of coercion.
                On all major outcome measures, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. No subject was arrested for a violent crime. Eighteen percent of the court-ordered group and 16 percent of the control group were arrested at least once. The percentage rehospitalized during follow-up was about the same for both groups-51 percent and 42 percent, respectively. The groups did not differ significantly in the total number of days hospitalized during the follow-up period. Participants' perceptions of their quality of life and level of coercion were about the same. From the community service providers' perspective, patients in the two groups were similarly adherent to their required treatments.
                All results must be qualified by the fact that no pick-up order procedures for noncompliant subjects in the court-ordered group were implemented during the study, which compromised the differences between the conditions for the two groups, and that persons with a history of violence were excluded from the program. To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment.
                Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation.
                Eight community mental health teams in southern England.
                160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years.
                The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse.
                Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up.
                Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, -61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, -18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference -24, -72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted).
                Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services. This study examines the efficacy of providing Enhanced Abbreviated or Standard Inpatient treatment and Outpatient treatment to drug-abusing clients. The experiment randomly assigned 412 clients to two therapeutic community programs, which differed primarily in planned duration. This study addressed limitations of prior research, as it used random assignment of clients to treatment programs, achieved high follow-up rates and used objective measures of drug use and criminal history. Self-reports and objective measures of criminal activity and substance abuse were collected at pre- and posttreatment interviews. Completing the entire 12-month program (inpatient and outpatient) was more important than duration of inpatient program attended. Regardless of program, completers had substantial reductions in posttreatment drug abuse and arrests. A 12-month course of treatment including at least 6 months in a therapeutic community followed by outpatient treatment can produce marked reductions in drug abuse and crime among persons who complete both phases.
Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.
[Note: the five citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]