Clio Berry, Joanne Hodgekins, Paul French, Tim Clarke, Lee Shepstone, Garry Barton, Robin Banerjee, Rory Byrne, Rick Fraser, Kelly Grant, Kathryn Greenwood, Caitlin Notley, Sophie Parker, Jon Wilson, Alison R Yung, David Fowler
{"title":"社会康复治疗预防和治疗新发严重精神疾病（PRODIGY）青少年长期社会残疾的临床和成本效益：随机对照试验","authors":"Clio Berry, Joanne Hodgekins, Paul French, Tim Clarke, Lee Shepstone, Garry Barton, Robin Banerjee, Rory Byrne, Rick Fraser, Kelly Grant, Kathryn Greenwood, Caitlin Notley, Sophie Parker, Jon Wilson, Alison R Yung, David Fowler","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2021.206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":520791,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science","volume":" ","pages":"154-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7612415/pdf/EMS140540.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Clio Berry, Joanne Hodgekins, Paul French, Tim Clarke, Lee Shepstone, Garry Barton, Robin Banerjee, Rory Byrne, Rick Fraser, Kelly Grant, Kathryn Greenwood, Caitlin Notley, Sophie Parker, Jon Wilson, Alison R Yung, David Fowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjp.2021.206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"154-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7612415/pdf/EMS140540.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.
Background: Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.
Aims: We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.
Method: A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.
Results: We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.
Conclusions: We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
