Supporting recovery in patients with psychosis using adult mental health teams (REFOCUS): a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial

Slade, Mike and Bird, Victoria and Clarke, Eleanor and Le Boutillier, Clair and McCrone, P. and Macpherson, Rob and Pesola, Francesca and Wallace, Genevieve and Williams, Julie and Leamy, Mary (2015) Supporting recovery in patients with psychosis using adult mental health teams (REFOCUS): a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2 (6). pp. 503-514. ISSN 2215-0374

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (670kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: Mental health policy in many countries is oriented around recovery. The evidence base for service-level pro-recovery interventions is lacking.

Methods: Two-site cluster randomised controlled trial in England (ISRCTN02507940). REFOCUS is a one-year team-level intervention targeting staff behaviour (increasing focus on patient values, preferences, strengths, goal-striving) and staff-patient relationships (coaching, partnership). 27 community-based adult mental health teams were randomly allocated to treatment-as-usual (n=13) or treatment-as-usual plus REFOCUS (n=14). Baseline (n=403) and one-year follow-up (n=297) outcomes were assessed for randomly selected patients with psychosis, representing 88% of target recruitment. Primary outcome was recovery, assessed using Questionnaire about Processes of Recovery (QPR).

Findings: Intention-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation found no difference in QPR Total (control 40·0 (s.d.10·2), intervention 40·6 (s.d.10·1), adjusted difference 0·68, 95%CI: -1·7 to 3·1, p=·58), or sub-scales. Secondary outcomes which improved in the intervention group were functioning (adjusted difference 6·96, 95%CI 2·8 to 9·2, p<·001) and staff-rated unmet need (adjusted difference 0·80, 95%CI 0·2 to 1·4, p=·01). This pattern remained after covariate adjustment and completer analysis (n=275). Higher-participating teams had higher staff-rated pro-recovery behaviour change (adjusted difference -0·4, 95%CI -0·7 to -0·2, p=·001) and patients had higher QPR Interpersonal scores (adjusted difference -1·6, 95%CI -2·7 to -0·5, p=·005) at follow-up. Intervention-group patients incurred £1,062 (95%CI -£1,103 to £3,017) lower adjusted costs.

Interpretation: Supporting recovery may, from the staff perspective, improve functioning and reduce needs. Overcoming implementation barriers may increase staff pro-recovery behaviours and interpersonal aspects of patient-rated recovery.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

Item Type: Article
Schools/Departments: University of Nottingham UK Campus > Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences
Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00086-3
Depositing User: Eprints, Support
Date Deposited: 20 Jun 2016 12:57
Last Modified: 15 Sep 2016 16:23
URI: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/34258

Actions (Archive Staff Only)

Edit View Edit View