Emma Molyneaux1, Amelia Turner2, Bridget Candy3, Sabine Landau4, Sonia Johnson5, Brynmor Lloyd-Evans6. 1. Research Associate, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK. 2. Trainee Clinical Psychologist, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust & Royal Holloway, University of London, UK. 3. Principal Research Associate, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, UK. 4. Professor of Biostatistics, Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK. 5. Professor of Social and Community Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, UK. 6. Senior Lecturer, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health services lack a strong evidence base on the most effective interventions to reduce compulsory admissions. However, some research suggests a positive impact of crisis-planning interventions in which patients are involved in planning for their future care during a mental health crisis. AIMS: This review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of crisis-planning interventions (for example advance statements and joint crisis plans) in reducing rates of compulsory hospital admissions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder, compared with usual care (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084808). METHOD: Six online databases were searched in October 2018. The primary outcome was compulsory psychiatric admissions and secondary outcomes included other psychiatric admissions, therapeutic alliance, perceived coercion and cost-effectiveness. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. RESULTS: The search identified 1428 studies and 5 RCTs were eligible. One study had high risk of bias because of incomplete primary outcome data. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a 25% reduction in compulsory admissions for those receiving crisis-planning interventions compared with usual care (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93, P = 0.008; from five studies). There was no statistical evidence that the intervention reduced the risk of voluntary or combined voluntary and compulsory psychiatric admissions. Few studies assessed other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that crisis-planning interventions substantially reduce the risk of compulsory admissions among individuals with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder. Despite common components, interventions varied in their content and intensity across the trials. The optimal models and implementation of these interventions require further investigation. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: E.M., S.L., S.J. and B.L.-E. received funding from the National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study.
BACKGROUND: Mental health services lack a strong evidence base on the most effective interventions to reduce compulsory admissions. However, some research suggests a positive impact of crisis-planning interventions in which patients are involved in planning for their future care during a mental health crisis. AIMS: This review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of crisis-planning interventions (for example advance statements and joint crisis plans) in reducing rates of compulsory hospital admissions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder, compared with usual care (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084808). METHOD: Six online databases were searched in October 2018. The primary outcome was compulsory psychiatric admissions and secondary outcomes included other psychiatric admissions, therapeutic alliance, perceived coercion and cost-effectiveness. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. RESULTS: The search identified 1428 studies and 5 RCTs were eligible. One study had high risk of bias because of incomplete primary outcome data. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a 25% reduction in compulsory admissions for those receiving crisis-planning interventions compared with usual care (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93, P = 0.008; from five studies). There was no statistical evidence that the intervention reduced the risk of voluntary or combined voluntary and compulsory psychiatric admissions. Few studies assessed other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that crisis-planning interventions substantially reduce the risk of compulsory admissions among individuals with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder. Despite common components, interventions varied in their content and intensity across the trials. The optimal models and implementation of these interventions require further investigation. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: E.M., S.L., S.J. and B.L.-E. received funding from the National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study.
Authors: Mary-Anne Cotton; Sonia Johnson; Jonathan Bindman; Andrew Sandor; Ian R White; Graham Thornicroft; Fiona Nolan; Stephen Pilling; John Hoult; Nigel McKenzie; Paul Bebbington Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Tilman Steinert; Andreas Bechdolf; Lieselotte Mahler; Rainer Muche; Johanna Baumgardt; Felix Bühling-Schindowski; Celline Cole; Marie Kampmann; Dorothea Sauter; Angelika Vandamme; Stefan Weinmann; Sophie Hirsch Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Manuela Silva; Ana Antunes; Sofia Azeredo-Lopes; Adriana Loureiro; Benedetto Saraceno; José Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida; Graça Cardoso Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2021-04-20
Authors: Lucy A Stephenson; Tania Gergel; Astrid Gieselmann; Matthé Scholten; Alex Ruck Keene; Larry Rifkin; Gareth Owen Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.157