Barakat Ansam, Blankers Matthijs, Cornelis Jurgen E, Lommerse Nick M, Beekman Aartjan Tf, Dekker Jack Jm
Department of Research, Arkin Institute for Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychiatry Amsterdam UMC/VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health research institute Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2024 Jan 3;18(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13033-023-00619-1.
Intensive home treatment (IHT) aims to prevent psychiatric hospitalisation. Although this intervention is well tested, it is still unknown for whom this intervention works best. Therefore, this study aims to explore prescriptive factors that moderate the effect of IHT compared to care as usual (CAU) on symptom severity.
Using data from a randomised controlled trial, 198 participants that experience an exacerbation of acute psychiatric symptoms were included in this secondary analysis. In order to maximise clinical relevance, generally available environmental and clinical baseline factors were included as tentative moderators: age, gender, employment status, domestic situation, psychiatric disorders, psychological symptoms, psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other substance use. The outcome variable symptom severity was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and collected at 26 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine which participants' characteristics moderate the effect of IHT on the total BPRS score.
Our results suggest that being employed (B = 0.28, SE = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.53, p = 0.03) at baseline seems to have a moderation effect, which result in lower symptom severity scores at 26 weeks follow-up for patients who received IHT. This effect was not found at 52 weeks.
On the basis of the number of factors tested, there is no evidence for robust outcome moderators of the effect of IHT versus CAU. Our conclusion is therefore that IHT can be offered to a diverse target population with comparable clinical results.
This trial is registered (date of registration: 2016-11-23) at the international clinical trials registry platform (NTR6151).
强化家庭治疗(IHT)旨在预防精神病住院治疗。尽管这种干预措施已经得到充分测试,但对于谁最适合接受这种干预仍不清楚。因此,本研究旨在探讨与常规护理(CAU)相比,强化家庭治疗对症状严重程度影响的调节性因素。
利用一项随机对照试验的数据,198名急性精神病症状加重的参与者被纳入本次二次分析。为了使临床相关性最大化,一般可用的环境和临床基线因素被作为暂定调节因素纳入:年龄、性别、就业状况、家庭状况、精神障碍、心理症状、心理社会功能、酒精及其他物质使用情况。使用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)测量结局变量症状严重程度,并在随机分组后26周和52周收集数据。采用多元回归分析来检验哪些参与者特征调节强化家庭治疗对BPRS总分的影响。
我们的结果表明,基线时就业(B = 0.28,标准误 = 0.13,95%置信区间 = 0.03 - 0.53,p = 0.03)似乎具有调节作用,这使得接受强化家庭治疗的患者在随访26周时症状严重程度得分更低。在52周时未发现这种效果。
基于所测试的因素数量,没有证据表明强化家庭治疗与常规护理效果之间存在强有力的结局调节因素。因此,我们的结论是,可以为不同的目标人群提供强化家庭治疗,临床结果相当。
本试验已在国际临床试验注册平台(NTR6151)注册(注册日期:2016 - 11 - 23)。