Thoegersen Marie Hoegh, Morthorst Brit Reuter, Nordentoft Merete
a Psychiatric Research Unit , Copenhagen University Hospital, Mental Health Center Copenhagen , Hellerup , Denmark.
b DIGNITY, Danish Institute Aganist Torture , Department of Rehabilitation.
Nord J Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;73(2):149-158. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2019.1576765. Epub 2019 Mar 21.
The future of assertive community treatment is uncertain, and studies have questioned whether it continues to provide a more effective treatment model for severely mentally ill patients in a modern mental health context. Studies conducted in new settings can contribute to the debate.
This Danish study compares treatment from assertive community treatment with treatment by standard community mental health teams, using a non-blinded quasi-experimental multi-center trial. Outcomes included contact with mental health services, days of admission, days of involuntary admission, number of outpatient contacts, adherence to antipsychotic medication, social functioning, user satisfaction, and psychopathology.
A total of 366 patients receiving treatment from assertive community treatment (n = 213) or continuation of care from community mental health teams (n = 153) were included in the trial. Assertive community treatment was significantly better in sustaining contact with patients. At 2-year follow-up, 16 (8%) of patients receiving assertive community treatment versus 22(14%) receiving care from standard treatment had lost contact with treatment. Patients who received assertive community treatment had a larger reduction in inpatient service-use, increased adherence to antipsychotic medication, improved social functioning, and higher user satisfaction. No differences in days of involuntary admission and psychopathology were found.
The results suggest that a high fidelity assertive community treatment may be a valuable tool to strengthen contact between severely mentally ill patients and the treatment staff and may contribute to improving outcomes in a modern Danish mental health context.
积极社区治疗的未来尚不确定,一些研究质疑在现代心理健康背景下,它是否仍能为重症精神病患者提供更有效的治疗模式。在新环境中开展的研究有助于推动这一辩论。
这项丹麦研究采用非盲法准实验性多中心试验,将积极社区治疗与标准社区心理健康团队的治疗进行比较。结果包括与心理健康服务机构的接触情况、住院天数、非自愿住院天数、门诊接触次数、抗精神病药物依从性、社会功能、用户满意度和精神病理学情况。
共有366名接受积极社区治疗(n = 213)或由社区心理健康团队继续提供护理(n = 153)的患者纳入试验。积极社区治疗在与患者保持联系方面明显更优。在2年随访时,接受积极社区治疗的患者中有16名(8%)与治疗失去联系,而接受标准治疗护理的患者中有22名(14%)失去联系。接受积极社区治疗的患者住院服务使用量减少更多,抗精神病药物依从性提高,社会功能改善,用户满意度更高。非自愿住院天数和精神病理学方面未发现差异。
结果表明,高保真的积极社区治疗可能是加强重症精神病患者与治疗人员之间联系的宝贵工具,可能有助于改善现代丹麦心理健康背景下的治疗效果。