These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT.
    Author: Fowler D, Berry C, Hodgekins J, Banerjee R, Barton G, Byrne R, Clarke T, Fraser R, Grant K, Greenwood K, Notley C, Parker S, Shepstone L, Wilson J, French P.
    Journal: Health Technol Assess; 2021 Nov; 25(70):1-98. PubMed ID: 34842524.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals. OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions. DESIGN: A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months. RESULTS: The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Their problems are often long-standing and they often have difficulty doing ‘structured activity’, such as work, sports and leisure activities (e.g. going shopping or to the cinema). They often avoid such activities because of anxiety or low mood. Other barriers may include financial and practical issues, and stigma from activity providers. Non-participation in structured activity increases the risk that mental health problems will continue and prevent these young people from reaching meaningful goals. We tested whether or not social recovery therapy might help. This is a talking and activity therapy, in which young people (participants) work individually with a social recovery therapy therapist. Social recovery therapy aims to help participants identify what activities they would like to do, practise spending more time doing them, and work through barriers to maintaining increased activity. By improving structured activity, young people feel more hopeful and better able to manage their symptoms. However, social recovery therapy has never been evaluated properly using the best research methods. The best way to evaluate treatments like this is a randomised controlled trial in which participants are allocated by chance, like tossing a coin, to have the new therapy or not to have the therapy. Both groups are followed up for a period to see if the new therapy works. We tested social recovery therapy in this way. We also tested whether or not it was cost-effective. We recruited 270 16- to 25-year-old participants in Sussex, East Anglia and Manchester. Participants had non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems (not psychosis) and were doing < 30 hours of structured activity per week at the start of the study. All participants had enhanced standard care. This involved standard NHS treatment plus a full assessment and feedback from the study team, and a best practice guide to local support services that encouraged the best provision of standard evidence-based interventions. Half of the participants were randomly allocated to have social recovery therapy in addition to enhanced standard care over 9 months. All participants were invited to assessments 9, 15 and 24 months later. Therapists recorded the tasks and activities undertaken with participants. We asked both participants and therapists what they thought of the trial and the social recovery therapy. We found no evidence that adding social recovery therapy improved outcomes. Participants in both arms made large and clinically worthwhile improvements in structured activity and mental health outcomes. If anything, there was some evidence that people allocated to enhanced standard care improved more than those allocated to social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care. The differences were small, however, and could have occurred by chance.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]