Implementing a psychosocial intervention DIALOG+ for patients with psychotic disorders in low and middle income countries in South Eastern Europe: protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized clinical trial (IMPULSE)

Author:

Jovanovic Nikolina1,Francis Jill2,Maric Nadja P.3,Arenliu Aliriza4,Barjaktarov Stojan5,Kulenovic Alma Dzubur6,Injac Lidija7,Feng Yan8,Novotni Antoni5

Affiliation:

1. Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry , WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, Bart’s and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry , Queen Mary University of London , UK

2. School of Health Sciences , City University of London , UK

3. Faculty of Medicine , University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

4. Department of Psychology , University of Prishtina , Kosovo

5. University Psychiatry Clinic , Skopje , Republic of North Macedonia

6. Clinical Center University of Sarajevo , Sarajevo ; Bosnia and Herzegovina

7. Psychiatric Clinic , University of Montenegro , Podgorica , Montenegro

8. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry , Queen Mary University of London

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Psychotic disorders have large treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in South-Eastern Europe, where up to 45% of affected people do not receive care for their condition. This study will assess the implementation of a generic psychosocial intervention called DIALOG+ in mental health care services and its effectiveness at improving patients’ clinical and social outcomes. Methods This is a protocol for a multi-country, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness–implementation, cluster-randomised, clinical trial. The trial aims to recruit 80 clinicians and 400 patients across 5 South-Eastern European LMICs: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia and Serbia. Clusters are clinicians working with patients with psychosis, and each clinician will deliver the intervention to five patients. After patient baseline assessments, clinicians will be randomly assigned to either the DIALOG+ intervention or treatment as usual, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The intervention will be delivered six times over 12 months during routine clinical meetings. TThe primary outcome measure is the quality of life at 12 months [Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)]; the secondary outcomes include mental health symptoms [Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)], satisfaction with services [Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)] and economic costs at 12 months [based on Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI), EQ-5D-5L and Recovering Quality of Life (ReQOL-10)]. The study will assess the intervention fidelity and the experience of clinicians and patients’ about implementing DIALOG+ in real-life mental health care settings. In the health economic assessment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated with effectiveness measured by quality-adjusted life year. Data will also be collected on sustainability and reach to inform guidelines for potentially scaling up and implementing the intervention widely. Conclusion: The study is expected to generate new scientific knowledge on the treatment of people with psychosis in health care systems with limited resources. The learning from LMICs could potentially help other countries to expand the access to care and alleviate the suffering of patients with psychosis and their families. Trial registration: ISRCTN 11913964

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference30 articles.

1. Attkisson, C.C., Greenfield, T.K. (2004). The UCSF Client Satisfaction Scales: I. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. In: Maruish ME, ed. The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (3rd Edition). Mahwah (NJ, USA): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; p. 799–811.

2. Beecham, J. (2001). Costing psychiatric interventions, in Measuring Mental Health Needs, T. G, ed. London: Gaskell.

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 32:77–101.

4. Cane, J., O’Connor, D., Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 24;7:37

5. Carroll, C., Patterson. M., Wood. S., Booth. A., Rick. J., Balain. S. (2007) A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 30;2:40.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3