Psychological intervention

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

Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China.

Abstract: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic1. The strategies based on non-pharmaceutical interventions that were used to contain the outbreak in China appear to be effective2, but quantitative research is still needed to assess the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions and their timings3. Here, using epidemiological data on COVID-19 and anonymized data on human movement4,5, we develop a modelling framework that uses daily travel networks to simulate different outbreak and intervention scenarios across China. We estimate that there were a total of 114,325 cases of COVID-19 (interquartile range 76,776–164,576) in mainland China as of 29 February 2020. Without non-pharmaceutical interventions, we predict that the number of cases would have been 67-fold higher (interquartile range 44–94-fold) by 29 February 2020, and we find that the effectiveness of different interventions varied. We estimate that early detection and isolation of cases prevented more infections than did travel restrictions and contact reductions, but that a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions achieved the strongest and most rapid effect. According to our model, the lifting of travel restrictions from 17 February 2020 does not lead to an increase in cases across China if social distancing interventions can be maintained, even at a limited level of an on average 25% reduction in contact between individuals that continues until late April. These findings improve our understanding of the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19, and will inform response efforts across the world. A model of the effects of different non-pharmaceutical interventions on the spread of COVID-19 in China suggests that a strategy involving the rapid implementation of a combination of interventions is most effective.

Psychological treatments in schizophrenia: I. Meta-analysis of family intervention and cognitive behaviour therapy

Abstract: Background. While there is a growing body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for schizophrenia, this meta-analysis improves upon previous systematic and meta-analytical reviews by including a wider range of randomized controlled trials and providing comparisons against both standard care and other active interventions. Method. Literature searches identified randomized controlled trials of four types of psychological interventions: family intervention, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), social skills training and cognitive remediation. These were then subjected to meta-analysis on a variety of outcome measures. This paper presents results relating to the first two. Results. Family therapy, in particular single family therapy, had clear preventative effects on the outcomes of psychotic relapse and readmission, in addition to benefits in medication compliance. CBT produced higher rates of 'important improvement' in mental state and demonstrated positive effects on continuous measures of mental state at follow-up. CBT also seems to be associated with low drop-out rates. Conclusions. Family intervention should be offered to people with schizophrenia who are in contact with carers. CBT may be useful for those with treatment resistant symptoms. Both treatments, in particular CBT, should be further investigated in large trials across a variety of patients, in various settings. The factors mediating treatment success in these interventions should be researched.

Clinical pharmacists and inpatient medical care : A systematic review

Abstract: Background The role of clinical pharmacists in the care of hospitalized patients has evolved over time, with increased emphasis on collaborative care and patient interaction. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the published literature on the effects of interventions by clinical pharmacists on processes and outcomes of care in hospitalized adults. Methods Peer-reviewed, English-language articles were identified from January 1, 1985, through April 30, 2005. Three independent assessors evaluated 343 citations. Inpatient pharmacist interventions were selected if they included a control group and objective patient-specific health outcomes; type of intervention, study design, and outcomes such as adverse drug events, medication appropriateness, and resource use were abstracted. Results Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, including 10 evaluating pharmacists' participation on rounds, 11 medication reconciliation studies, and 15 on drug-specific pharmacist services. Adverse drug events, adverse drug reactions, or medication errors were reduced in 7 of 12 trials that included these outcomes. Medication adherence, knowledge, and appropriateness improved in 7 of 11 studies, while there was shortened hospital length of stay in 9 of 17 trials. No intervention led to worse clinical outcomes and only 1 reported higher health care use. Improvements in both inpatient and outpatient outcome measurements were observed. Conclusions The addition of clinical pharmacist services in the care of inpatients generally resulted in improved care, with no evidence of harm. Interacting with the health care team on patient rounds, interviewing patients, reconciling medications, and providing patient discharge counseling and follow-up all resulted in improved outcomes. Future studies should include multiple sites, larger sample sizes, reproducible interventions, and identification of patient-specific factors that lead to improved outcomes.