S. B. G. Park

Bio: S. B. G. Park is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Care Programme Approach & Health policy. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 969 citations.

Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Research and development.

Abstract: BACKGROUND An instrument was required to quantify and thus potentially measure progress towards a Health of the Nation target, set by the Department of Health, "to improve significantly the health and social functioning of mentally ill people". METHOD A first draft was created in consultation with experts and on the basis of literature review. This version was improved during four stages of testing: two preliminary stages, a large field trial involving 2706 patients (rated by 492 clinicians) and tests of the final Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), which included an independent study (n = 197) of reliability and relationship to other instruments. RESULTS The resulting 12-item instrument is simple to use, covers clinical problems and social functioning with reasonable adequacy, has been generally acceptable to clinicians who have used it, is sensitive to change or the lack of it, showed good reliability in independent trials and compared reasonably well with equivalent items in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales and Role Functioning Scales. CONCLUSIONS The key test for HoNOS is that clinicians should want to use it for their own purposes. In general, it has passed that test. A further possibility, that HoNOS data collected routinely as part of a minimum data set, for example for the Care Programme Approach, could also be useful in anonymized and aggregated form for public health purposes, is therefore testable but has not yet been tested.

A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness

Abstract: Objectives To evaluate the effects of integrated treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. Design Randomised clinical trial. Setting Copenhagen Hospital Corporation and Psychiatric Hospital Aarhus, Denmark. Participants 547 patients with first episode of schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Interventions Integrated treatment and standard treatment. The integrated treatment lasted for two years and consisted of assertive community treatment with programmes for family involvement and social skills training. Standard treatment offered contact with a community mental health centre. Main outcome measures Psychotic and negative symptoms (each scored from 0 to a maximum of 5) at one and two years' follow-up. Results At one year's follow-up, psychotic symptoms changed favourably to a mean of 1.09 (standard deviation 1.27) with an estimated mean difference between groups of –0.31 (95% confidence interval –0.55 to –0.07, P = 0.02) in favour of integrated treatment. Negative symptoms changed favourably with an estimated difference between groups of –0.36 (–0.54 to –0.17, P < 0.001) in favour of integrated treatment. At two years' follow-up the estimated mean difference between groups in psychotic symptoms was –0.32 (–0.58 to –0.06, P = 0.02) and in negative symptoms was –0.45 (–0.67 to –0.22, P < 0.001), both in favour of integrated treatment. Patients who received integrated treatment had significantly less comorbid substance misuse, better adherence to treatment, and more satisfaction with treatment. Conclusion Integrated treatment improved clinical outcome and adherence to treatment. The improvement in clinical outcome was consistent at one year and two year follow-ups.

Recovery: an international perspective.

Abstract: SUMMARY. Aims – To review developments in recovery-focussed mental health services internationally. Methods – Two forms of ‘recovery’ which have been used in the literature are considered, and international examples of recovery-focussed initiatives reviews. A ‘litmus test’ for a recovery-focussed service is proposed. Results – ‘Clinical recovery’ has emerged from professional literature, focuses on sustained remission and restoration of functioning, is invariant across individuals, and has been used to establish rates of recovery. ‘Personal recovery’ has emerged from consumer narratives, focuses on living a satisfying, hopeful and contributing life even with limitations caused by the illness, varies across individuals, and the empirical evidence base relates to stages of change more than overall prevalence rates. Clinical and personal recovery are different. Two innovative, generalisable and empirically investigated examples are given of implementing a focus on personal recovery: the Collaborative Recovery Model in Australia, and Trialogues in German-speaking Europe. The role of medication is an indicator: services in which all service users are prescribed medication, in which the term ‘compliance’ is used, in which the reasoning bias is present of attributing improvement to medication and deterioration to the person, and in which contact with and discussion about the service user revolves around medication issues, are not personal recovery-focussed services. Conclusions – The term ‘Recovery’ has been used in different ways, so conceptual clarity is important. Developing a focus on personal recovery is more than a cosmetic change – it will entail fundamental shifts in the values of mental health services. Declaration of Interest: None.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

Abstract: Background Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input. Objectives To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015). Selection criteria All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials. Main results The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state. 1. ICM versus standard care When ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence). 2. ICM versus non-ICM When ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence). 3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027). Authors' conclusions Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital. However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach. We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

Stages of recovery instrument: development of a measure of recovery from serious mental illness.

Abstract: Objective: In order to realize the vision of recovery-orientated mental health services, there is a need for a model and a method of measuring recovery as the concept is described by mental health consumers. A preliminary five-stage model based on consumer accounts was developed in an earlier study by the authors. This next stage of the research program describes the development and initial testing of a stage measure which, when validated, can be used in testing that model.Method: Existing measures of recovery were reviewed to assess their concordance with the model, and a new measure, the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) was subsequently developed. A postal survey was conducted of 94 volunteers from the NISAD Schizophrenia Research Register. Participants completed the STORI and measures of mental health, psychological wellbeing, hope, resilience and recovery.Results: The STORI correlated with all of the psychological health variables, and the five stage subscales were found to be internally consiste...

A review of the psychometric properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures

Abstract: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales was developed to routinely measure outcomes for adults with mental illness. Comparable instruments were also developed for children and adolescents (the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents) and older people (the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales 65+). All three are being widely used as outcome measures in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. There is, however, no comprehensive review of these instruments. This paper fills this gap by reviewing the psychometric properties of each. Articles and reports relating to the instruments were retrieved, and their findings synthesised to assess the instruments' validity (content, construct, concurrent, predictive), reliability (test-retest, inter-rater), sensitivity to change, and feasibility/utility. Mostly, the instruments perform adequately or better on most dimensions, although some of their psychometric properties warrant closer examination. Collectively, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales family of measures can assess outcomes for different groups on a range of mental health-related constructs, and can be regarded as appropriate for routinely monitoring outcomes.