6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4
      Cochrane Schizophrenia Group
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery‐oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness. To assess the effects of peer‐support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study‐Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status. We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse). The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random‐effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains. All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low‐quality evidence) or all‐cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low‐quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society. One trial compared peer support with clinician‐led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes. Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer‐support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness. Peer support for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses Background Schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are chronic disruptive mental disorders with disturbing psychotic, affective and cognitive symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, depression, anxiety, insomnia, difficulty in concentration, suspiciousness and social withdrawal. The primary treatment is antipsychotic medicine, but these are not always fully effective. Peer support provides the opportunity for both a service user and a provider of care to share knowledge, direct experience of their illness and to help each other along the path to recovery. The support is given alongside antipsychotic treatment. Through interpersonal sharing, modelling and assistance within or outside of group sessions, it is believed that these supportive strategies can help combat feelings of hopelessness and behavioural problems that may result from having an illness and empower people to continue their treatment and help them to resume key roles in real life. However, findings from research have been inconsistent regarding the effectiveness of peer support for people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Review aims This review aimed to find high‐quality evidence from relevant randomised clinical trials (studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) so we could assess the effects of peer‐support interventions for people with serious mental illness in comparison to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. We were interested in finding clinically meaningful data that could provide information regarding the effect peer support has on hospital admission, relapse, global state, quality of life, death and cost to society for people with schizophrenia. Searches We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's specialised register of trials (up to 2017) and found 13 trials that randomised 2479 people with schizophrenia or other similar serious mental illnesses to receive either peer support plus their standard care, clinician‐led support plus their standard care or standard care alone. Key results Thirteen trials were available but the evidence was very low quality. Useable data were reported for only two of our prespecified outcomes of importance and showed adding peer support to standard care appeared to have little or no clear impact on hospital admission or death for people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. One of these trials (participants = 156) also compared peer support with clinician‐led support (where a health professional provided support). However, there were no useable data for this comparison reported for the main outcomes. Conclusions We have little confidence in the above findings. Currently, there is no high‐quality evidence available to either support or refute the effectiveness of peer‐support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis.

          Peer support, and the integration of peer relationships in the provision of health care, is a concept of substantial significance to health scientists and practitioners today, as the focus shifts from the treatment of disease to health promotion. If the nursing profession is to effectively incorporate peer relationships into support-enhancing interventions as a means to improve quality care and health outcomes, it is essential that this growing concept be clearly explicated. This paper explores the concept of peer support through the application of Walker and Avant's (Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Toronto, 1995) concept analysis methodology. This analysis will provide the nursing profession with the conceptual basis to effectively develop, implement, evaluate, and compare peer support interventions while also serving as a guide for further conceptual and empirical research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What does the PANSS mean?

            Despite the frequent use of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for rating the symptoms of schizophrenia, the clinical meaning of its total score and of the cut-offs that are used to define treatment response (e.g. at least 20% or 50% reduction of the baseline score) are as yet unclear. We therefore compared the PANSS with simultaneous ratings of Clinical Global Impressions (CGI). PANSS and CGI ratings at baseline (n = 4091), and after one, two, four and six weeks of treatment taken from a pooled database of seven pivotal, multi-center antipsychotic drug trials on olanzapine or amisulpride in patients with exacerbations of schizophrenia were compared using equipercentile linking. Being considered "mildly ill" according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a PANSS total score of 58, "moderately ill" to a PANSS of 75, "markedly ill" to a PANSS of 95 and severely ill to a PANSS of 116. To be "minimally improved" according to the CGI score was associated with a mean percentage PANSS reduction of 19%, 23%, 26% and 28% at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 6, respectively. The corresponding figures for a CGI rating "much improved" were 40%, 45%, 51% and 53%. The results provide a better framework for understanding the clinical meaning of the PANSS total score in drug trials of schizophrenia patients with acute exacerbations. Such studies may ideally use at least a 50% reduction from baseline cut-off to define response rather than lower thresholds. In treatment resistant populations, however, even a small improvement can be important, so that a 25% cut-off might be appropriate.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Schizophrenia, "just the facts" 4. Clinical features and conceptualization.

              Although dementia praecox or schizophrenia has been considered a unique disease entity for the past century, its definitions and boundaries have continued to vary over this period. At any given time, the changing concept of schizophrenia has been influenced by available diagnostic tools and treatments, related conditions from which it most needs to be distinguished, extant knowledge and scientific paradigms. There is significant heterogeneity in the etiopathology, symptomatology, and course of schizophrenia. It is characterized by an admixture of positive, negative, cognitive, mood, and motor symptoms whose severity varies across patients and through the course of the illness. Positive symptoms usually first begin in adolescence or early adulthood, but are often preceded by varying degrees of negative and cognitive symptomatology. Schizophrenia tends to be a chronic and relapsing disorder with generally incomplete remissions, variable degrees of functional impairment and social disability, frequent comorbid substance abuse, and decreased longevity. Although schizophrenia may not represent a single disease with a unitary etiology or pathogenetic process, alternative approaches have thus far been unsuccessful in better defining this syndrome or its component entities. The symptomatologic, course, and etio-pathological heterogeneity can usefully be addressed by a dimensional approach to psychopathology, a clinical staging approach to illness course, and by elucidating endophenotypes and markers of illness progression, respectively. This will allow an approach to the deconstruction of schizophrenia into its multiple component parts and strategies to reconfigure these components in a more meaningful manner. Possible implications for DSM-V and ICD-11 definitions of schizophrenia are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                146518
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                April 04 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Nethersole School of Nursing; 8/F., Esther Lee Building, Chung Chi Campus The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin New Territories Hong Kong
                [2 ]De Montfort University; Faculty of Health and Life Sciences; 3.10 Edith Murphy House The Gateway Leicester UK LE1 9BH
                [3 ]The Ingenuity Centre, The University of Nottingham; Systematic Review Solutions Ltd; Triumph Road Nottingham UK NG7 2TU
                [4 ]University of Huddersfield; School of Human and Health Sciences; Harold Wilson Building Queensgate Huddersfield UK HD1 3DH
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD010880.pub2
                6448529
                30946482
                64ab5e6f-336e-475c-b936-96211c34dfdf
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article