Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Research Notes

Open Access

Improving adherence in mental health service users with severe mental illness in South Africa: a pilot randomized controlled trial of a treatment partner and text message intervention vs. treatment as usual

BMC Research Notes201710:584

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2915-z

Received: 11 August 2017

Accepted: 3 November 2017

Published: 9 November 2017

Abstract

Objectives

Medication non-adherence is a significant problem in treatment of severe mental disorders and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased demand on services. Task-shifting interventions incorporating mobile health may improve adherence in mental health service users in low- and middle-income countries. Seventy-seven participants were recruited from a psychiatric hospital in Cape Town, with 42 randomized to receive the intervention and 35 to treatment as usual. Intervention pairs underwent treatment-partner contracting and psychoeducation, and received monthly text message reminders of clinic appointments. Primary outcomes were intervention acceptability and feasibility. Secondary outcome for efficacy were adherence to clinic visit; relapse; quality of life; symptomatic relief and medication adherence.

Results

Treatment partner and psychoeducation components were acceptable and feasible. The text message component was acceptable but not feasible in its current form. Efficacy outcomes favoured the intervention but did not reach statistical significance. A treatment-partner intervention is acceptable and feasible in a low- and middle-income setting. Work is needed to ensure that additional components of such interventions are tailored to the local context. Appropriately powered efficacy studies are needed.

Trial Registration PACTR PACTR201610001830190, Registered 21 October 2016 (Retrospectively registered)

Keywords

Mental healthTask-shiftingTreatment partnerAdherenceText messageMobile health

Introduction

Poor medication adherence is a major problem in the treatment of severe mental disorders and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased demand on services [13]. Thus, there is significant interest in developing interventions to improve medication adherence in this group [4, 5].

Mental health services are under-resourced globally, with low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) facing a particular challenge [6]. One approach that seeks to address the shortfall is task-shifting, which refers to the delivery of evidence-based interventions by non-specialist workers [79]. Treatment partner interventions may represent a useful task-shifting approach in adherence-promotion for mental health service users (MHSU). A MHSU is an individual accessing care, treatment and rehabilitation services via a health establishment for the purpose of enhancing his or her mental health status [10].

Telephone prompts have shown promise in encouraging treatment adherence and clinic attendance [4, 11]. Mobile health (m-health), defined as medical and public health practice supported by mobile devices, is gaining popularity worldwide [12, 13]. While m-health approaches require further investigation to establish efficacy, they have been adopted in maternal and child health, and chronic diseases [12, 14, 15]. This technology has not been widely used in adherence-focused mental health interventions in LMIC.

Approaches to adherence-support have emphasized the importance of health literacy, problem-solving, and social support, as well as the potential of telephone prompts [4, 5]. It is however unclear whether an approach incorporating these components is feasible in a LMIC setting.

Our two-arm non-blinded prospective pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of a treatment partner and text message intervention in supporting adherence in people with severe mental illness.

Main text

Methods

We recruited over 2 years from Valkenberg hospital (VBH), which offers public psychiatric services in Cape Town, and at 15 psychiatry clinics in the hospital’s catchment area. VBH has 116 male, and 84 female beds with majority of patients having a diagnosis of severe mental illness, constituting a significant service and disability burden [16]. The psychiatry clinics providing post-discharge care in the VBH catchment area are run by mental health nurses.

We screened clinical folders of MHSU in the pre-discharge wards at VBH. We included MHSU diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, substance induced psychotic disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type I. We approached eligible MHSU and obtained informed consent from those willing to participate after being informed about the study. Exclusion criteria included: (a) a diagnosis of psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, dementia, moderate to severe intellectual disability; or (b) suicidality; or (c) an inability to give informed consent.

Participants were randomized to either intervention or treatment as usual (TAU), using a randomization sequence generated by an external statistician. We ensured allocation concealment by using opaque, sealed sequentially numbered envelopes.

Intervention participants nominated a treatment partner from within their social support network. An appointment was set at a date preceding the participant’s discharge from VBH for intervention procedures to be initiated.

Routine care and study activities are described in Table 1. The intervention incorporated TAU with the addition of (1) a treatment partner contracting and psychoeducation session and (2) text message reminders of clinic appointments. Intervention development was informed by focus group and in-depth interview work (published elsewhere), where we found there was a need for caregiving relationships to be negotiated to protect he MHSU’s autonomy [17].
Table 1

Routine care, timelines and corresponding study activities

Stage in MHSU care

MHSU care activity

Corresponding research activity

Routine care

Treatment as usual = routine care PLUS

Intervention = treatment as usual PLUS

In pre-discharge ward

The MHSU receives standard pre-discharge care. This includes

Clinical review

Finalizing of treatment plan

Psychosocial rehabilitation programmes

Individual and group psychoeducation

Discharge planning by the clinical team, encompassing identification of which CHC the MHSU will be discharged to and when, as well as arrangement of post-discharge psychosocial support for the MHSU

1. We obtained informed consent from eligible patients

2. We conducted recruitment activities including diagnostic and baseline measures as described in the text

3. We randomized recruited participants to receive either treatment as usual or the intervention

4. We informed participants which group they had been randomized to

5. Participants who had been randomized to receive the intervention selected a treatment partner as described in the text

6. These selected treatment partners were contacted telephonically, consented and a date was set for the psychoeducation and contracting session

7. The psychoeducation and contracting session was conducted at Valkenberg Hospital for the participant and treatment partner pair

On day of discharge

The MHSU discharged from inpatient care with referral letter detailing course of admission, diagnosis, treatment plan, review CHC and date

8. Participants were enrolled onto the text message platform

9. The first text message was sent to the participant/ treatment partner pair containing details of first clinic appointment as per discharge treatment plan

10. Fieldworker handsets received updated participant review schedules

1 week before first clinic appointment

No activity

No activity

11. A text message reminder was sent to the participant/treatment partner pair containing same details as first message

At first clinic appointment

The MHSU is reviewed by the mental health nurse or psychiatry registrar at the psychiatry clinic of CHC

Medication is renewed or modified

A follow up appointment is issued

The MHSU’s CHC clinical record clinical record updated to indicate

Attendance for review

Clinical status

Medication review and prescription

Next scheduled appointment date

The MHSU collects his or her medication and leaves the CHC

No additional activity

12. On arrival, mental health nurse checks the participant as present

13. The mental health nurse asks the participant how many days of medication have been missed since discharge from hospital and enters this information on the fieldworker handset

14. The mental health nurse enters the next scheduled clinic review appointment date onto the text message platform via the fieldworker handset

15. The participant/treatment partner pair immediately received a text message notification indicating the next appointment date with the name of the CHC as in the initial text message

After the first clinic appointment

The MHSU is reviewed on the scheduled review date and the process described above at first clinic appointment is repeated for subsequent visits

No additional activity

16. The participant/treatment partner pair receives a text message reminder of the next appointment date one week before that appointment

17. The process described at steps 12-16 above is repeated for three visits in total

3 months after discharge

Routine clinical care is continued

18. All participants, accompanied by their caregivers for the TAU group or treatment partners for the intervention group, returned at 3 months after discharge for clinical and review and qualitative interviews as described in the text

9 months after discharge

19. Any readmissions were noted for all participants were noted via Clinicom

The treatment partner contracting and psychoeducation session was conducted with the intervention pair at VBH on the agreed-upon date. Psychoeducation focused on the participant’s diagnosis and was based on the national institute for mental health and the VBH psychoeducation guidelines, with input from specialist psychiatrists at VBH [18]. Psychoeducation addressed mental health literacy needs uncovered during our formative work and included psychiatry clinic follow-up processes. An individualized participant/treatment partner relationship was negotiated and agreed upon, detailing a communication and adherence-support approach.

Upon discharge, participant information was loaded onto a text message system using one enrolment handset. Fifteen fieldworker handsets were programmed for use by the nurses. Once enrolled, the fieldworker handsets were remotely populated with the relevant participant information. Once discharged, the intervention pair received a text message, indicating the appointment clinic and date. Another text message was sent 1 week before the appointment. TAU participants received no text messages. When participants arrived at the clinic the nurse used the handsets to mark the participant’s attendance, and to schedule a follow-up appointment on the system, which then sent similar notifications to those sent upon discharge. Nurses scheduled 2 follow-up appointments in total.

Assessment measures

Participants underwent a structured clinical interview for diagnosis of axis-I disorders (SCID-I) to confirm diagnosis, which included a global assessment of function scale (GAF) and clinical global impressions scale (CGI). We administered the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) to measure severity of psychotic symptoms. These scales have been widely used locally in genetics and treatment studies [3, 1922]. The Camberwell assessment of needs scale (CAN) was used to measure met and unmet needs [23]. The EUROQOL was used to measure functional level, and the medication adherence rating scale (MARS) was used as a measure of medication adherence [24, 25].

We used the text message system to track intervention group attendance at first clinic visit. The attendance of both groups was additionally captured retrospectively from the attendance registers at the clinics. All participants needed to return for a follow-up study visit 3-months from enrolment. The MARS, PANSS, CAN and EUROQUOL were re-administered at this visit, following which a semi-structured interview was conducted with all participants. Participants were asked about their diagnosis and treatment, their adherence behaviour and about their clinic experience. TAU group were asked about the standard pre-discharge psychoeducation, and the intervention group about the psychoeducation session. Caregivers and treatment partners provided feedback about the experience of their adherence support role, and on participants’ adherence behaviour. Intervention pairs provided feedback on the components of the intervention. These audio-recorded interviews were conducted in the language of respondents’ choice, in the presence of a translator and transcribed before undergoing thematic analysis.

At 9 months, readmissions were noted via Clinicom, a secure online platform used to track health service users accessing public health services in Cape Town, which maintains detailed notes regarding assessments, admissions, and treatment (see Additional file 1).

We expected that the intervention would be acceptable and feasible, and result in increased first clinic visits and reduced 9-month readmissions. We expected an improvement in medication adherence and quality of life, a reduction of needs and symptomatic improvement.

Statistical analysis

Primary outcomes were intervention acceptability and feasibility. Efficacy outcomes, which were secondary, were adherence to first clinic visit; relapse, defined as readmission to hospital; medication adherence; quality of life and symptomatic relief. Data for clinic visits and readmission were complete. The efficacy outcomes had incomplete outcome data as only 34 participants attended the study visit at 3 months. We report all effect measures as risk ratios or mean differences with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. A two-tailed significance level of 5% was used throughout and analyses were conducted using Stata version 13.

Results

The participant flow diagram is available as an additional figure (see Additional file 2). Seventy-seven participants were randomized, 42 to the intervention and 35 to TAU. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed at the end of the 2-year recruitment period (n = 77). With the significant participant attrition at 3-month study follow up, we calculated that a sample size of 520 would be required to demonstrate a moderate effect.

Sample demographic characteristics are presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Baseline variables

 

Total samplea

(N = 77)

Intervention

(N = 42)

TAU

(N = 35)

Statistic (df)

p value

 

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Participant characteristics

 Age

35.5

(10.2)

35.3

10.9

35.8

9.5

t = − 0.35 (75)

0.726

 

N

(%)

N

(%)

N

(%)

  

 Sex

χ2 = 1.03 (1)

0.311

  Male

55

71.4

28

66.6

27

77.1

  

  Female

22

28.6

14

33.3

8

22.9

  

 Ethnicity

χ2 = 0.51 (2)

0.774

  Coloured

47

66.2

26

66.7

21

65.6

  

  Black

18

25.3

9

23.1

9

23.1

  

  Other

6

8.5

4

10.3

2

6.3

  

 Marital status

χ2 = 0.29 (1)

0.591

  Never married

51

71.8

27

69.2

24

75.0

  

  Ever married

20

28.2

12

30.8

8

25.0

  

 Highest level of education

χ2 = 0.15 (2)

0.930

  Grade 7 or less

12

17.7

6

16.7

6

18.7

  

  Grades 8 to 11

42

61.8

22

61.1

20

62.5

  

  Grade 12

14

20.6

8

22.2

6

18.8

  

 6 month employment

χ2 = 0.31 (1)

0.579

  Unemployed

47

69.1

28

71.8

19

65.5

  

  Employed

21

30.9

11

28.2

10

34.5

  

 Diagnosis

0.604

  Schizophrenia Spectrum

62

80.5

32

76.2

30

85.7

  

  Bipolar mood disorder

11

14.3

7

16.7

4

11.4

  

  Substance induced psychotic disorder

4

5.2

3

7.1

1

2.9

  

 Substance use

χ2 = 0.18 (1)

0.671

  Lifetime substance use disorder

31

40,3

16

38.1

15

42.9

  

 Antipsychotic

  First generation

50

64.9

26

61.9

24

68.6

χ2 = 0.37 (1)

0.542

  Second generation

19

24.7

12

28.6

7

20.0

χ2 = 0.75 (1)

0.385

  Long acting injectable

22

28.6

10

23.8

12

34.29

χ2 = 1.03 (1)

0.311

Baseline measures

 PANSS subscales

  Positive

15.4

6.5

15.6

6.9

15.2

6.2

t = 0.06 (73)

0.951

  Negative

14.4

4.7

13.8

4.8

15.1

4.5

t = − 1.47 (73)

0.015

  General

26.8

7.5

26.5

7.9

27.1

7.2

t = − 0.44 (73)

0.663

  Total

56.6

15.9

55.9

17.1

57.4

14.5

t = − 0.42 (73)

0.676

 CGI

3.5

1

3.4

1

3.7

1

t = − 0.96 (68)

0.340

 GAF

48.8

10.1

49.9

10.8

47.6

9.4

z = 1.170

0.242

 CAN unmet needs

4.1

2.98

3.6

2.97

4.7

2.94

z = − 1.705

0.088

 EUROQUEL VAS

8.4

20.7

84

21.2

84.8

20.4

z = − 0.200

0.842

 MARS

5.9

1.88

5.8

1.87

6.0

1.93

t = − 0.36 (71)

0.723

aBaseline variables with missing data included: marital status: n = 6, ethnicity: n = 6, HLOE: n = 9, employment = 9, PANSS: n = 2, CGI: n = 7, GAF score: n = 14, CAN: n = 6, EUROQUEL VAS: n = 3, MARS: n = 4

Treatment partners included family members, partners and friends. At 3-month review, intervention participants understood their diagnosis better than TAU participants. Understanding of medication regimen and reported treatment adherence were similarly low in both groups. The psychoeducation session was seen to be superior to standard pre-discharge psychoeducation. Treatment partners showed a better knowledge of diagnosis. Intervention pairs felt that a psychoeducation follow-up would be valuable in the long-term to reinforce knowledge.

Some participants (41.2%) did not receive the text messages, either due to changed cellphone numbers or due to misplacement or theft of cellphones. Those who received the text messages all found them helpful. The nurses found the refreshing of handsets burdensome and challenging in spite of reinforcement training. Three of the fieldworker handsets were lost through theft.

All participants found the clinic easy to access and navigate. More treatment partners than caregivers found the clinic helpful in supporting adherence. The experiences of being a treatment partner and a caregiver were similar, with half in each group reporting a positive experience and the other half experiencing it as challenging [26].

The intervention was acceptable. The psychoeducation and the treatment partner components were feasible while there were significant challenges with the text message system.

Efficacy outcome data is represented in Table 3. TAU participants were more likely to miss their first clinic visit and to relapse in the 9 months following discharge. At 3 month review, TAU participants were more likely to show worsening PANNS scores, while GAF scores showed better improvement amongst intervention participants. CGI scores suggested a symptom improvement for the intervention group while the GAF scores of both groups suggested general improvement in functioning. There was a trend towards an increase in unmet needs in the TAU group vs a decline in the intervention group, while met needs were seen to increase in both groups.
Table 3

Efficacy outcomes

Outcome

n

%

Risk ratio (ITT)

p value

95% CI

Unadjusted

(n = 77)

Adjusteda

(n = 77)

Intention-to-treat analysis (ITT): non-adherence to first clinic visit, re-admission over 9 months

 Non-adherence to first clinic appointment

  Intervention (n = 42)

14

33.3

0.72

0.79

0.419

0.44 to 1.39

  Treatment as usual (n = 35)

16

45.7

 Any re-admission over 9 months

  Intervention (n = 42)

5

11.9

0.83

0.86

0.713

0.39 to 1.87

  Treatment as usual (n = 35)

5

14.3

Outcome

Complete case analysisc (intervention vs. TAU)

ITT (intervention vs. TAU)

Mean differenced

p value

95% CI

Mean differencee (n = 77)

p value

95% CI

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Complete case and intention to treat analysis (ITT) of other efficacy outcomes at 3 months

 PANSS score

  Total score

− 9.4

− 14.7

0.052

− 29.71 to 0.16

− 13.4

− 13.1

0.062

− 27.00 to 0.73

  Positive subscale

− 3.8

− 6.4

0.011

− 11.20 to 1.60

− 5.6

− 5.4

0.060

− 11.16 to 0.25

  Negative subscale

− 2.6

−4.4

0.059

− 8.99 to 0.18

− 3.5

− 3.5

0.078

− 7.52 to 0.43

  General subscale

− 2.8

− 3.9

0.350

− 12.6 1 to 4.68

− 4.4

− 4.2

0.248

− 11.67 to 3.19

 MARS

− 0.21

− 0.75

0.425

− 2.68 to 1.17

0.36

0.49

0.603

− 1.44 to 2.43

 CGI

− 0.8

− 0.58

0.346

− 1.84 to 0.67

 GAF

7.5

4.1

0.440

− 6.90 to 15.17

 CAN

    

  Total needs

  Unmet needs

− 3.2

− 3.6

0.029

− 6.74 to 0.49

  Met needs

EUROQUEL-VAS

16.1

15.2

0.124

− 4.59 to 34.99

aLog-Poisson regression model with robust variance estimation, ITT; adjusted for age, sex, substance use disorder, baseline scores of PANSS total score, GAF score, MARS, EUROQUEL VAS scale, CAN unmet needs score

bLog-Poisson regression model with robust variance estimation, ITT; sex dropped from model, adjusted for adjusted for age, substance use disorder, baseline scores of PANSS total score, GAF score, MARS, EUROQUEL VAS scale, CAN unmet needs score. Baseline data were imputed

cMultiple linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, substance use disorders, baseline scores of PANSS total score, GAF, EUROQUEL, MARS, CAN unmet needs. Models with violation of linear regression assumptions omitted

dSample size varied due to list-wise deletion

eOnly models for which missing data < 55% are reported

Discussion

We found that (1) The treatment-partner and psychoeducation components were acceptable and feasible; (2) The text message component was acceptable but not feasible in its current form; and (3) Efficacy outcomes favoured the intervention but did not reach statistical significance.

The acceptability and feasibility of this intervention is consistent with prior literature [8]. Our approach was in line with previous caregiver focused interventions, which have targeted mental health literacy on the experience of caregiving. Family psychoeducation interventions have reduced relapse in people living with severe mental illness, while helping to meet caregiver needs [27, 28]. While it has been more difficult to change coping styles and reduce caregiver burden, short term interventions have improved caregivers’ knowledge and attitudes towards MHSU and mental illness [29, 30].

Brief psychoeducation has reduced relapse in the medium term and promoted medication adherence in the short term [31]. Improved clinical outcomes have included reduced relapse and improvement in treatment adherence [32]. Many of our participants reported inadequate and inconsistent current psychoeducation approaches within routine MHSU discharge processes, potentially alluding to inadequate discharge planning. Good discharge planning may be affected by the quality of the therapeutic alliance, which in turn is often impacted by the clinician’s clinical experience [3336].

While text messaging is a promising and acceptable tool to aid medication and clinic adherence in mental illness, the evidence base remains inconclusive [14, 37, 38]. Our formative work found support for text message prompts [17]. Some challenges encountered during the trial however, included participant factors such as changing numbers and loss of handsets, impacting negatively on the utility of text messaging, as did fieldworker factors including software challenges and loss of handsets. Socioeconomic factors and the complexity of the software thus impacted negatively on the utility of text message prompts in our setting.

In conclusion, a treatment-partner psychoeducation intervention is acceptable and feasible in a LMIC setting. Psychoeducation must be tailored to the needs of the specific population targeted, and take into account the need for ongoing reinforcement. M-health may have potential to improve adherence, but text message prompts may be problematic in some LMIC settings such as ours at present. Such additional components of such interventions must be tailored to the local context. The assessment of efficacy for such an intervention requires appropriately powered studies.

Limitations

  • Sample size was insufficiently powered for the efficacy analyses. Our primary focus of was on acceptability and feasibility. The work done here allows a power analysis for future efficacy research using larger samples.

  • The mental health nurses experienced challenges interacting with the text message system. This compromised appointment checking and rescheduling.

Abbreviations

LMIC: 

low- and middle-income countries

M-health: 

mobile health

MHSU: 

mental health service user

CHC: 

community health centre

VBH: 

Valkenberg hospital

TAU: 

treatment as usual

SCID-1: 

structured clinical interview for diagnosis of axis-I disorders

GAF: 

global assessment of function scale

CGI: 

clinical global impressions

PANSS: 

positive and negative syndrome scale

CAN: 

Camberwell assessment of needs scale

MARS: 

medication adherence rating scale

SD: 

standard deviation

LOCF: 

last observation carried forward

MAR: 

missing at random

MICE: 

multiple imputation with chained equations

VBH: 

Valkenberg hospital

ITT: 

intention to treat analysis

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

DS, PM, ES, and GT conceptualized the original topic for investigation. GS prepared the protocol and all ethics submissions. All authors participated in the development of questionnaires and psychoeducation guides. HT and GS conducted the baseline and 3 month clinical assessments. PW facilitated contact with the mental health nurses. SM and GS conducted the 3-month qualitative interviews, supervised by CL. HT conducted the statistical analyses. GS interpreted the analyses and drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version for submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved for all sites by the Human Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town (HREC REF: 511/2011). All participants signed informed consent prior to any study procedures. All treatment partners received a handout containing information about the study, informed consent and confidentiality. Anonymity of participants was protected at all discussions by the use of pseudonyms.

Funding

Initial funding for this study was received from the World Psychiatric Association. DS AND GS were supported by the South African Medical Research Council Unit on Anxiety and Stress Disorders. CL was supported by the Programme for Improving Mental health care (PRIME), funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies. SM has received support from a National Research Foundation, South Africa postdoctoral fellowship as well as a Harry Crossley Foundation post-doctoral fellowship. PW, HT and PM are specialist psychiatrists in public service with no external funding. GT is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King’s College London Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. GT acknowledges financial support from the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit awarded to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. GT is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) Emerald project. ES’s in-kind contribution was supported by New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town
(2)
Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
(3)
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York State Psychiatric Institute

References

  1. Liu-Seifert H, Adams DH, Kinon BJ. Discontinuation of treatment of schizophrenic patients is driven by poor symptom response: a pooled post hoc analysis of four atypical antipsychotic drugs. BMC Med. 2005;3:21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. OECD. The cost of mental illness. Paris: Anonymous Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Emsley R, Rabinowitz J, Medori R. Remission in early psychosis: rates, predictors, and clinical and functional outcome correlates. Schizophr Res. 2007;89(1–3):129–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Nosé M, Barbui C, Gray R, Tansella M. Clinical interventions for treatment non-adherence in psychosis: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:197–206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Haynes RB, Ackloo E, Sahota N, McDonald HP, Yao X. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000011.pub3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. WHO | Mental Health Atlas 2014. http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/atlas/mental_health_atlas_2014/en/. Accessed 11 Sept 2016.
  7. Task Shifting Booklet. http://www.who.int/healthsystems/task_shifting_booklet.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  8. Petersen I, Lund C, Stein DJ. Optimizing mental health services in low-income and middle-income countries. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2011;24(4):318–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Patel V. The future of psychiatry in low- and middle-income countries. Psychol Med. 2009;39(11):1759–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. South African Government. Mental Health Care Act No. 17 of 2002. South African Government Gazette; 2002. http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a17-02.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2016.
  11. Rowett M, Reda S, Makhoul S. Prompts to encourage appointment attendance for people with serious mental illness. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(5):910–1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Global Observatory for eHealth. http://www.who.int/goe/publications/ehealth_series_vol3/en/index.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.
  13. Mukund Bahadur KC, Murray PJ. Cell phone short messaging service (SMS) for HIV/AIDS in South Africa: a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):530–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kauppi K, Valimaki M, Hatonen HM, Kuosmanen LM, Warwick-Smith K, Adams CE. Information and communication technology based prompting for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD009960.Google Scholar
  15. van Heerden A, Tomlinson M, Swartz L. Point of care in your pocket: a research agenda for the field of m-health. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):393–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanlon C. Next steps for meeting the needs of people with severe mental illness in low- and middle-income countries. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016;26(4):348–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mall S, Sibeko G, Temmingh H, Stein DJ, Milligan P, Lund C. Using a treatment partner and text messaging to improve adherence to psychotropic medication: a qualitative formative study of service users and caregivers in Cape Town, South Africa. Afr J Psychiatry (Johannesbg). 2013;16(5):364–70.Google Scholar
  18. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/toics/schizophrenia/index.shtml. Accessed 24 Feb 2016.
  19. Emsley R, Oosthuizen P, Koen L, Niehaus DJH, Medori R, Rabinowitz J. Oral versus injectable antipsychotic treatment in early psychosis: post hoc comparison of two studies. Clin Ther. 2008;30(12):2378–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Emsley R, Nuamah I, Hough D, Gopal S. Treatment response after relapse in a placebo-controlled maintenance trial in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2012;138(1):29–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Spies G, Stein DJ, Roos A, Faure SC, Mostert J, Seedat S, Vythilingum B. Validity of the Kessler 10 (K-10) in detecting DSM-IV defined mood and anxiety disorders among pregnant women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2009;12(2):69–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Roos JL. Genetics of schizophrenia: communicating scientific findings in the clinical setting. Afr J Psychiatry (Johannesbg). 2011;14(2):105–11.Google Scholar
  23. Flisher A, Sorsdahl K, Joska J. Reliability of the Camberwell assessment of need for South African mental health service users. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2012;58(1):47–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fialko L, Garety PA, Kuipers E, Dunn G, Bebbington PE, Fowler D, Freeman D. A large-scale validation study of the medication adherence rating scale (MARS). Schizophr Res. 2008;100(1–3):53–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Prieto L, Novick D, Sacristán JA, Edgell ET, Alonso J. A Rasch model analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of the EuroQoL-5D in the schizophrenia outpatient health outcomes study. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2003;416:24–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Sibeko G, Milligan PD, Temmingh H, Lund C, Stein DJ, Mall S. Caregiving for mental health service users: a study exploring the perceptions of mental health service users and their caregivers in Cape Town. South Africa. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2016;62(6):512–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickett-Schenk SA, Bennett C, Cook JA, Steigman P, Lippincott R, Villagracia I, Grey D. Changes in caregiving satisfaction and information needs among relatives of adults with mental illness: results of a randomized evaluation of a family-led education intervention. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2006;76(4):545–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miklowitz DJ. The role of family systems in severe and recurrent psychiatric disorders: a developmental psychopathology view. Dev Psychopathol. 2004;16(3):667–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Szmukler G. Helping carers of patients with severe mental illness. 8th Congress of the Association of European Psychiatrists. London, UK. 7–12th July, 1996. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); 2011(10).Google Scholar
  30. Rahmani F, Ranjbar F, Ebrahimi H, Hosseinzadeh M. The effects of group psychoeducational programme on attitude toward mental illness in families of patients with schizophrenia, 2014. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(3):243–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhao S, Sampson S, Xia J, Jayaram MB. Psychoeducation (brief) for people with serious mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD010823.Google Scholar
  32. Xia J, Merinder LB, Belgamwar MR. Psychoeducation for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;6:CD002831.Google Scholar
  33. Foli-Andersen NJ. Treatment and follow-up in the psychiatric emergency room can be improved. Dan Med J. 2014;61(2):A4779.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Han KT, Kim SJ, Jang SI, Hahm MI, Kim SJ, Lee SY, Park EC. The outcomes of psychiatric inpatients by proportion of experienced psychiatrists and nurse staffing in hospital: new findings on improving the quality of mental health care in South Korea. Psychiatry Res. 2015;229(3):880–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fenton WS, Blyler CR, Heinssen RK. Determinants of medication compliance in schizophrenia: empirical and clinical findings. Schizophr Bull. 1997;23(4):637–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Steffen S, Kösters M, Becker T, Puschner B. Discharge planning in mental health care: a systematic review of the recent literature. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;120(1):1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Watson T, Simpson S, Hughes C. Text messaging interventions for individuals with mental health disorders including substance use: a systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2016;243:255–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bogart K, Wong SK, Lewis C, Akenzua A, Hayes D, Prountzos A, Okocha CI, Kravariti E. Mobile phone text message reminders of antipsychotic medication: is it time and who should receive them? A cross-sectional trust-wide survey of psychiatric inpatients. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement