Literature DB >> 32608353

A web-based, peer-supported self-management intervention to reduce distress in relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder: the REACT RCT.

Fiona Lobban1, Nadia Akers1, Duncan Appelbe2, Rossella Iraci Capuccinello3, Lesley Chapman1, Lizzi Collinge1, Susanna Dodd2, Sue Flowers1, Bruce Hollingsworth3, Mahsa Honary1, Sonia Johnson4, Steven H Jones1, Ceu Mateus3, Barbara Mezes1, Elizabeth Murray5, Katerina Panagaki1, Naomi Rainford2, Heather Robinson1, Anna Rosala-Hallas2, William Sellwood3, Andrew Walker1, Paula R Williamson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Relatives caring for people with severe mental health problems find information and emotional support hard to access. Online support for self-management offers a potential solution.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online supported self-management tool for relatives: the Relatives' Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). DESIGN AND
SETTING: This was a primarily online (UK), single-blind, randomised controlled trial, comparing REACT plus a resource directory and treatment as usual with the resource directory and treatment as usual only, by measuring user distress and other well-being measures at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems across the UK took part; relatives who were aged ≥ 16 years, were experiencing high levels of distress, had access to the internet and were actively seeking help were recruited. INTERVENTION: REACT comprised 12 psychoeducation modules, peer support through a group forum, confidential messaging and a comprehensive resource directory of national support. Trained relatives moderated the forum and responded to messages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome was the level of participants' distress, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-28 items.
RESULTS: Various online and offline strategies, including social media, directed potential participants to the website. Participants were randomised to one of two arms: REACT plus the resource directory (n = 399) or the resource directory only (n = 401). Retention at 24 weeks was 75% (REACT arm, n = 292; resource directory-only arm, n = 307). The mean scores for the General Health Questionnaire-28 items reduced substantially across both arms over 24 weeks, from 40.2 (standard deviation 14.3) to 30.5 (standard deviation 15.6), with no significant difference between arms (mean difference -1.39, 95% confidence interval -3.60 to 0.83; p = 0.22). At 12 weeks, the General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores were lower in the REACT arm than in the resource directory-only arm (-2.08, 95% confidence interval -4.14 to -0.03; p = 0.027), but this finding is likely to be of limited clinical significance. Accounting for missing data, which were associated with higher distress in the REACT arm (0.33, 95% confidence interval -0.27 to 0.93; p = 0.279), in a longitudinal model, there was no significant difference between arms over 24 weeks (-0.56, 95% confidence interval -2.34 to 1.22; p = 0.51). REACT cost £142.95 per participant to design and deliver (£62.27 for delivery only), compared with £0.84 for the resource directory only. A health economic analysis of NHS, health and Personal Social Services outcomes found that REACT has higher costs (£286.77), slightly better General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores (incremental General Health Questionnaire-28 items score adjusted for baseline, age and gender: -1.152, 95% confidence interval -3.370 to 1.065) and slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year gains than the resource directory only; none of these differences was statistically significant. The median time spent online was 50.8 minutes (interquartile range 12.4-172.1 minutes) for REACT, with no significant association with outcome. Participants reported finding REACT a safe, confidential environment (96%) and reported feeling supported by the forum (89%) and the REACT supporters (86%). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The sample comprised predominantly white British females, 25% of participants were lost to follow-up and dropout in the REACT arm was not random.
CONCLUSIONS: An online self-management support toolkit with a moderated group forum is acceptable to relatives and, compared with face-to-face programmes, offers inexpensive, safe delivery of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended support to engage relatives as peers in care delivery. However, currently, REACT plus the resource directory is no more effective at reducing relatives' distress than the resource directory only. FUTURE WORK: Further research in improving the effectiveness of online carer support interventions is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72019945. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CARERS; DIGITAL; MENTAL HEALTH; ONLINE; PEER SUPPORT; PSYCHOEDUCATION; RELATIVES

Year:  2020        PMID: 32608353      PMCID: PMC7355407          DOI: 10.3310/hta24320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  107 in total

Review 1.  Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Authors:  Harvey A Whiteford; Louisa Degenhardt; Jürgen Rehm; Amanda J Baxter; Alize J Ferrari; Holly E Erskine; Fiona J Charlson; Rosana E Norman; Abraham D Flaxman; Nicole Johns; Roy Burstein; Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE.

Authors:  C S Carver
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  1997

3.  A controlled trial of a counselling intervention for caregivers of relatives with schizophrenia.

Authors:  G I Szmukler; H Herrman; S Colusa; A Benson; S Bloch
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.328

4.  Three-year outcome of family work in an early psychosis program.

Authors:  Jean Addington; Amanda McCleery; Donald Addington
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 4.939

5.  A proof of concept trial of an online psychoeducational program for relatives of both veterans and civilians living with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Shirley M Glynn; Eugenia T Randolph; Thomas Garrick; Anna Lui
Journal:  Psychiatr Rehabil J       Date:  2010

Review 6.  Psychiatric symptoms in caregivers of patients with bipolar disorder: a review.

Authors:  Annie Steele; Nancy Maruyama; Igor Galynker
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 4.839

7.  Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey replication.

Authors:  Kathleen R Merikangas; Hagop S Akiskal; Jules Angst; Paul E Greenberg; Robert M A Hirschfeld; Maria Petukhova; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2007-05

8.  Five-year follow-up of a randomized multicenter trial of intensive early intervention vs standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness: the OPUS trial.

Authors:  Mette Bertelsen; Pia Jeppesen; Lone Petersen; Anne Thorup; Johan Øhlenschlaeger; Phuong le Quach; Torben Østergaard Christensen; Gertrud Krarup; Per Jørgensen; Merete Nordentoft
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2008-07

Review 9.  Internet-based psychological interventions for bipolar disorder: Review of the present and insights into the future.

Authors:  Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei; Ainoa Mateu; María Reinares; Aleksandar Matic; Eduard Vieta; Francesc Colom
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.839

10.  Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Zarnie Khadjesari; Elizabeth Murray; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Ian R White; Jim McCambridge; Simon G Thompson; Paul Wallace; Christine Godfrey
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  2 in total

1.  Community-based social interventions for people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of recent evidence.

Authors:  Helen Killaspy; Carol Harvey; Catherine Brasier; Lisa Brophy; Priscilla Ennals; Justine Fletcher; Bridget Hamilton
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 49.548

Review 2.  Recruitment, consent and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials published in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library (1997-2020).

Authors:  Richard M Jacques; Rashida Ahmed; James Harper; Adya Ranjan; Isra Saeed; Rebecca M Simpson; Stephen J Walters
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 2.692

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.