Effects of Illness Management and Recovery: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

There have been inconsistent findings in the literature with respect to the efficacy of Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) in the psychosocial treatment of people with schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the effectiveness of IMR, including the impact of completion and fidelity. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), 187 outpatients received either IMR plus care as usual (CAU) or only CAU. Multilevel modeling was implemented to investigate group differences over an 18-month period, comprising 12 months of treatment and six months of follow-up. The primary outcome was overall illness management, which was assessed using the client version of the IMR scale. Secondary outcomes included measures regarding illness management, clinical, personal, and functional recovery, and hospitalizations. The interviewers were blinded to group allocation. This clinical trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL4931, NTR5033). Patients who received IMR showed statistically significant improvement in self-reported overall illness management (the primary outcome). Moreover, they showed an improvement in self-esteem, which is a component of personal recovery. There were no effects within the other questionnaires. There were also no statistically significant between-group differences in terms of hospitalizations. Patients in both groups showed statistically significant improvement in clinician-rated overall illness management, social support, clinical and functional recovery, and self-stigma over time. IMR completion was associated with stronger effects. High IMR fidelity was associated with self-esteem. This study confirms the efficacy of IMR in overall illness self-management. To our knowledge, this is the first RCT on IMR to explore the impact of fidelity on treatment efficacy. Future studies should further establish efficacy in personal recovery. To improve efficacy, it appears important to promote IMR completion and fidelity.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of interpersonal community psychiatric treatment (ICPT) for people with long-term severe non-psychotic mental disorders: a multi-Centre randomized controlled trial

Background Long-term community mental health treatment for non-psychotic disorder patients with severe mental illness (SMI) who are perceived as difficult by clinicians, is poorly developed and lacks a structured, goal-centred approach. This study compares (cost-)effectiveness of Interpersonal Community Psychiatric Treatment (ICPT) with Care As Usual (CAU) on quality of life and clinician perceived difficulty in the care for non-psychotic disorder SMI-patients. A multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical tria was conducted in which Community Mental Health Nurses (Clinicians) in three large community mental health services in the Netherlands were randomly allocated to providing either ICPT or CAU to included patients. A total of 56 clinicians were randomized, who treated a total of 93 patients (59 in ICPT-group and 34 in CAU-group). Methods Primary outcome measure is patient-perceived quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Secondary outcome measures include clinician-perceived difficulty, general mental health, treatment outcomes, illness management and recovery, therapeutic relationship, care needs and social network. Patients were assessed at baseline, during treatment (6 months), after treatment (12 months) and at 6 months follow-up (18 months). Linear mixed-effects models for repeated measurements were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between intervention and control group of patients over time on an intention to treat basis. Potential efficiency was investigated from a societal perspective. Economic evaluation was based on general principles of a cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcome measures for health economic evaluation, were costs, and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Results Half of the intended number of patients were recruited. There was no statistically significant treatment effect found in the MANSA (0.17, 95%-CI [− 0.058,0.431], p = 0.191). Treatment effects showed significant improvement in the Different Doctor-Patient Relationship Questionnaire-scores and a significant increase in the Illness Management and Recovery–scale Client-version scores). No effects of ICPT on societal and medical costs nor QALYs were found. Conclusions This is the first RCT to investigate the (cost)-effectiveness of ICPT. Compared with CAU, ICPT did not improve quality of life, but significantly reduced clinician-perceived difficulty, and increased subjective illness management and recovery. No effects on costs or QALY’s were found. Trial registration NTR 3988, registered 13 May 2013.

The missing link-participants’ perspectives on transfer from psychosocial interventional contexts to everyday community life: a qualitative synthesis of interventional studies

Background The aim of this study was to illuminate participants’ experiences with transfer in (1) Illness Management and Recovery (IMR); and (2) two programs based on peer support: Turning Points, and Learn to Tackle Anxiety and Depression (LTAD); and whether peer support within these programs influenced the process of transfer beyond the interventional context. Furthermore, we investigated participants’ experiences with a community-based intervention [Individual Placement and Support (IPS)] to explore perspectives on mechanisms that may eliminate challenges in the transfer process. Methods The study was based on semi-structured interviews with participants with mental illness, from four different psychosocial interventions with and without peer support and across interventional settings. The material partly consists of secondary analyses of existing data sets of anonymised, transcribed interviews investigating participants' experience from two psychosocial interventions: Illness Management and Recovery (n = 15), and Individual Placement and Support (n = 12). Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with persons who had participated in one of two peer-led programs: Turning Points and Learn How to Tackle Anxiety and Depression (n = 12). The analysis was guided by a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach to illuminate transfer processes and was based on the template method described by Nigel King. Results Applying a transfer perspective on rehabilitation interventions identified everyday life situations where capacities learned during the interventions were utilized and conditions were highlighted that promoted or hindered transfer. Experiential knowledge and peer-exchange made transferal pathways between the interventional context and everyday life. Illness intrusiveness and uncertainty, together with environmental obstacles, generated transferal gaps. Individualized support could partly address these gaps. Conclusion Findings from this qualitative study illuminate how peer-support in group-based rehabilitation interventions increased social functioning and developed better self-care strategies that can be transferred to daily life. Interventions situated in mental health settings, e.g. outpatient clinics, had limited impact on participation in broader community life. Advancing rehabilitation services in mental health may benefit from tailoring services to address illness fluctuation and combining group sessions with individualized support together with acknowledging and overcoming environmental obstacles.

The Effect of Intensive Implementation Support on Fidelity for Four Evidence-Based Psychosis Treatments: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Purpose Service providers need effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) with high fidelity. This study aimed to evaluate an intensive implementation support strategy to increase fidelity to EBP standards in treatment of patients with psychosis. Methods The study used a cluster randomized design with pairwise assignment of practices within each of 39 Norwegian mental health clinics. Each site chose two of four practices for implementation: physical health care, antipsychotic medication management, family psychoeducation, illness management and recovery. One practice was assigned to the experimental condition (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) and the other to the control condition (manual only). The outcome measure was fidelity to the EBP, measured at baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months, analyzed using linear mixed models and effect sizes. Results The increase in fidelity scores (within a range 1–5) from baseline to 18 months was significantly greater for experimental sites than for control sites for the combined four practices, with mean difference in change of 0.86 with 95% CI (0.21; 1.50), p = 0.009). Effect sizes for increase in group difference of mean fidelity scores were 2.24 for illness management and recovery, 0.68 for physical health care, 0.71 for antipsychotic medication management, and 0.27 for family psychoeducation. Most improvements occurred during the first 12 months. Conclusions Intensive implementation strategies (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) over 12 months can facilitate the implementation of EBPs for psychosis treatment. The approach may be more effective for some practices than for others.

Identifying the minimal important difference in patient-reported outcome measures in the field of people with severe mental illness: a pre–post-analysis of the Illness Management and Recovery Programme

Purpose Complementary interventions for persons with severe mental illness (SMI) focus on both personal recovery and illness self-management. This paper aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) associated with the most relevant and meaningful change in persons with SMI who attended the Illness Management and Recovery Programme (IMR). Methods The effect of the IMR was measured with PROMs concerning recovery, illness self-management, burden of symptoms and quality of life (QoL). From the QoL measures, an anchor was chosen based on the most statistically significant correlations with the PROMs. Then, we estimated the minimal important difference (MID) for all PROMs using an anchor-based method supported by distribution-based methods. The PROM with the highest outcome for effect score divided by MID (the effect/MID index) was considered to be a measure of the most relevant and meaningful change. Results All PROMs showed significant pre–post-effects. The QoL measure ‘General Health Perception (Rand-GHP)’ was identified as the anchor. Based on the anchor method, the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) showed the highest effect/MID index, which was supported by the distribution-based methods. Because of the modifying gender covariate, we stratified the MID calculations. In most MIDs, the MHRM showed the highest effect/MID indexes. Conclusion Taking into account the low sample size and the gender covariate, we conclude that the MHRM was capable of showing the most relevant and meaningful change as a result of the IMR in persons with SMI.

Participants’ lived experience of pursuing personal goals in the Illness Management and Recovery program

Background: The Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program is designed to support people diagnosed with severe mental illness in developing tailored illness-management skills and to pursue personal goals. Although IMR is a goal-oriented program, little is know about the participants’ experience of goal-setting as part of IMR. Aim: To describe participants’ lived experience of personal goal-setting as part of the Illness Management and Recovery program (IMR). Method: A descriptive, phenomenological research design was employed with individual interviews. Results: IMR helped the participants break down their personal goals into manageable short-term goals. The main themes were as follows: ‘We were guided to set clearer and specific goals in IMR’, ‘We were encouraged to pursue our personal goals in IMR’ and ‘We were encouraged and supported to resume work on our goals when we stopped making progress’. The findings emphasise goal-setting in IMR as a means to instilling hope for the future and work on goals. Conclusions: The participants learned to identify, articulate and initiate work towards short- and long-term goals when guided by the instructor and supported by peers in the IMR group. Goal-setting is a useful method for breaking down personal recovery goals into a practical short-term goals and motivating participants to pursue them. The findings indicate goal-setting is an important part of the IMR-program, but suggest that flexibility in goal-setting is needed, especially in the time required to achieve personal goals.