Suppr超能文献

基于社区的干预措施对印度精神分裂症患者及其照顾者的效果(COPSI):一项随机对照试验。

Effectiveness of a community-based intervention for people with schizophrenia and their caregivers in India (COPSI): a randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Sangath, Goa, India.

Schizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India.

出版信息

Lancet. 2014 Apr 19;383(9926):1385-94. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62629-X. Epub 2014 Mar 5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests that community-based services for people with schizophrenia can be successfully provided by community health workers, when supervised by specialists, in low-income and middle-income countries. We did the COmmunity care for People with Schizophrenia in India (COPSI) trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative community-based care intervention with standard facility-based care.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three sites in India between Jan 1, 2009 and Dec 31, 2010. Patients aged 16-60 years with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic Criteria for Research (ICD-10-DCR) were randomly assigned (2:1), via a computer-generated randomisation list with block sizes of three, six, or nine, to receive either collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care or facility-based care alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was a change in symptoms and disabilities over 12 months, as measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and the Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale (IDEAS). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 56877013.

FINDINGS

187 participants were randomised to the collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care group and 95 were randomised to the facility-based care alone group; 253 (90%) participants completed follow-up to month 12. At 12 months, total PANSS and IDEAS scores were lower in patients in the intervention group than in those in the control group (PANSS adjusted mean difference -3.75, 95% CI -7.92 to 0.42; p=0.08; IDEAS -0.95, -1.68 to -0.23; p=0.01). However, no difference was shown in the proportion of participants who had a reduction of more than 20% in overall symptoms (PANSS 85 [51%] in the intervention group vs 44 [51%] in the control group; p=0.89; IDEAS 75 [48%] vs 28 [35%]). We noted a significant reduction in symptom and disability outcomes at the rural Tamil Nadu site (-9.29, -15.41 to -3.17; p=0.003). Two patients (one in each group) died by suicide during the study, and two patients died because of complications of a road traffic accident and pre-existing cardiac disease. 18 (73%) patients (17 in the intervention group) were admitted to hospital during the course of the trial, of whom seven were admitted because of physical health problems, such as acute gastritis and vomiting, road accident, high fever, or cardiovascular disease.

INTERPRETATION

The collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care intervention is modestly more effective than facility-based care, especially for reducing disability and symptoms of psychosis. Our results show that the study intervention is best implemented as an initial service in settings where services are scarce, for example in rural areas.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

摘要

背景

观察性证据表明,在低收入和中等收入国家,由社区卫生工作者在专家监督下,为精神分裂症患者提供以社区为基础的服务,可以取得成功。我们开展了印度社区精神分裂症患者关爱(COPSI)试验,旨在比较协作式以社区为基础的护理干预与标准机构为基础的护理的效果。

方法

我们在印度的三个地点进行了一项多中心、平行组、随机对照试验,时间为 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2010 年 12 月 31 日。纳入的患者为年龄在 16-60 岁之间,根据国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10-DCR)诊断标准确诊为精神分裂症的患者。他们被随机分配(2:1),使用计算机生成的随机分组列表,分组大小为 3、6 或 9,接受协作式以社区为基础的护理加机构为基础的护理或机构为基础的护理单独治疗。按照研究地点进行分层随机分组。结果评估人员对分组情况进行了盲法处理。主要结局是在 12 个月时症状和残疾的变化,采用阳性和阴性综合征量表(PANSS)和印度残疾评估和评定量表(IDEAS)进行评估。采用改良意向治疗进行分析。这项研究在国际标准随机对照试验注册平台(ISRCTN)注册,编号为 ISRCTN 56877013。

结果

187 名患者被随机分配至协作式以社区为基础的护理加机构为基础的护理组,95 名患者被随机分配至机构为基础的护理单独治疗组;共有 253 名(90%)患者完成了 12 个月的随访。在 12 个月时,干预组患者的总 PANSS 和 IDEAS 评分均低于对照组(PANSS 评分调整后平均差值-3.75,95%CI-7.92 至 0.42;p=0.08;IDEAS-0.95,-1.68 至-0.23;p=0.01)。然而,在症状总缓解率超过 20%的患者比例方面,两组之间没有差异(PANSS 85[51%]vs 44[51%];p=0.89;IDEAS 75[48%]vs 28[35%])。我们注意到在农村泰米尔纳德邦地点的症状和残疾结局有显著改善(-9.29,-15.41 至-3.17;p=0.003)。在研究期间,有两名患者(每组各 1 名)自杀身亡,另有两名患者因道路交通事故和先前存在的心脏病等并发症死亡。在试验过程中,共有 18 名患者(17 名在干预组)住院,其中 7 名患者因急性胃炎和呕吐、道路交通事故、高热或心血管疾病等身体健康问题住院。

结论

协作式以社区为基础的护理加机构为基础的护理干预比机构为基础的护理稍有效,特别是在减少残疾和精神病症状方面。我们的结果表明,该研究干预措施在服务稀缺的环境中作为初始服务效果最佳,例如在农村地区。

资金来源

惠康信托基金会。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/496d/4255067/42ea5108fcca/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验