Psychological intervention

About: Psychological intervention is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 82654 publications have been published within this topic receiving 2608356 citations.

Determinants of Medication Compliance in Schizophrenia: Empirical and Clinical Findings

Abstract: Advances in psychopharmacology have produced medications with substantial efficacy in the treatment of positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the prevention of relapse or symptom exacerbation after an acute episode. In the clinical setting, the individual patient's acceptance or rejection of prescribed pharmacological regimens is often the single greatest determinant of these treatments' effectiveness. For this reason, an understanding of factors that impede and promote patient collaboration with prescribed acute and maintenance treatment should inform both pharmacological and psychosocial treatment planning. We review the substantive literature on medication adherence in schizophrenia and describe a modified health belief model within which empirical findings can be understood. In addition to factors intrinsic to schizophrenia psychopathology, medication-related factors, available social support, substance abuse comorbidity, and the quality of the therapeutic alliance each affect adherence and offer potential points of intervention to improve the likelihood of collaboration. Because noncompliance as a clinical problem is multidetermined, an individualized approach to assessment and treatment, which is often best developed in the context of an ongoing physician-patient relationship, is optimal. The differential diagnosis of noncompliance should lead to interventions that target specific causal factors thought to be operative in the individual patient.

Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report.

Abstract: The discovery of effective interventions to prevent or delay disability in older persons is a public health priority. Most likely to benefit from such interventions are frail individuals who are not yet disabled and those with early disability who are at high risk of progression. In spite of this frail older persons have often been excluded from research on the assumption that they would not tolerate testing or benefit from treatment. The Interventions on Frailty Working Group developed recommendations to screen, recruit, evaluate, and retain frail older persons in clinical trials. Specific recommendations are: Eligibility screening should include a multistage process, to quickly exclude those who are too well and those who are too sick. Inclusion criteria should target those most likely to benefit, be meaningful to clinicians, and reflect advancements in the frailty research area. Disability outcome measures should include self-reported, objective, and proxy measures. Strategies to improve retention and compliance and to monitor their effectiveness should be an integral part of the study design. Estimation of cost and sample size should contemplate high dropout rates and interference by competing outcomes. Additional research is needed to refine criteria for screening frail older persons, identify objective measures of disability that are reliable and valid in frail older persons, and improve the informed consent process for high-risk participants, recognizing that research in this subgroup is essential to improving their health outcomes.

Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

Abstract: Objectives To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined. Data sources We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010. Review methods We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence. Results We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient. Conclusions The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.

Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review

Abstract: Our objective was to compare the effects on mental and physical wellbeing, health related quality of life and long-term adherence to physical activity, of participation in physical activity in natural environments compared with physical activity indoors. We conducted a systematic review using the following data sources: Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, GreenFILE, SportDISCUS, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index--Science and BIOSIS from inception to June 2010. Internet searches of relevant Web sites, hand searches of relevant journals, and the reference lists of included papers and other review papers identified in the search were also searched for relevant information. Controlled trials (randomized and nonrandomized) were included. To be eligible trials had to compare the effects of outdoor exercise initiatives with those conducted indoors and report on at least one physical or mental wellbeing outcome in adults or children. Screening of articles for inclusion, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of identified studies a narrative synthesis was performed. Eleven trials (833 adults) were included. Most participants (6 trials; 523 adults) were young students. Study entry criteria and methods were sparsely reported. All interventions consisted of a single episode of walking or running indoors with the same activity at a similar level conducted outdoors on a separate occasion. A total of 13 different outcome measures were used to evaluate the effects of exercise on mental wellbeing, and 4 outcome measures were used to assess attitude to exercise. Most trials (n = 9) showed some improvement in mental wellbeing on one or other of the outcome measures. Compared with exercising indoors, exercising in natural environments was associated with greater feelings of revitalization and positive engagement, decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy. However, the results suggested that feelings of calmness may be decreased following outdoor exercise. Participants reported greater enjoyment and satisfaction with outdoor activity and declared a greater intent to repeat the activity at a later date. None of the identified studies measured the effects of physical activity on physical wellbeing or the effect of natural environments on exercise adherence. The hypothesis that there are added beneficial effects to be gained from performing physical activity outdoors in natural environments is very appealing and has generated considerable interest. This review has shown some promising effects on self-reported mental wellbeing immediately following exercise in nature which are not seen following the same exercise indoors. However, the interpretation and extrapolation of these findings is hampered by the poor methodological quality of the available evidence and the heterogeneity of outcome measures employed. The review demonstrates the paucity of high quality evidence on which to base recommendations and reveals an undoubted need for further research in this area. Large, well designed, longer term trials in populations who might benefit most from the potential advantages of outdoor exercise are needed to fully elucidate the effects on mental and physical wellbeing. The influence of these effects on the sustainability of physical activity initiatives also awaits investigation.