Lancet Psychiatry最新文献

Background: Open-door policy is a recommended framework to reduce coercion in psychiatric wards. However, existing observational data might not fully capture potential increases in harm and use of coercion associated with open-door policies. In this first randomised controlled trial, we compared coercive practices in open-door policy and treatment-as-usual wards in an urban hospital setting. We hypothesised that the open-door policy would be non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on the proportion of patients exposed to coercive measures.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing two open-door policy wards and three treatment-as-usual acute psychiatric wards at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital in Oslo, Norway. An exemption from the consent requirements enabled inclusion and random allocation of all patients admitted to these wards using an open list (2:3 ratio) administrated by a team of ward nurses. The primary outcome was the proportion of patient stays with one or more coercive measures, including involuntary medication, isolation or seclusion, and physical and mechanical restraints. The non-inferiority margin was set to 15%. Primary and safety analyses were assessed using the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN registry and is complete, ISRCTN16876467.

Findings: Between Feb 10, 2021, and Feb 1, 2022, we randomly assigned 556 patients to either open-door policy wards (n=245; mean age 41·6 [SD 14·5] years; 119 [49%] male; 126 [51%] female; and 180 [73%] admitted to the ward involuntarily) or treatment-as-usual wards (n=311; mean age 41·6 [4·3] years; 172 [55%] male and 138 [45%] female; 233 [75%] admitted involuntarily). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. The open-door policy was non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on all outcomes: the proportion of patient stays with exposure to coercion was 65 (26·5%) in open-door policy wards and 104 (33·4%) in treatment-as-usual wards (risk difference 6·9%; 95% CI -0·7 to 14·5), with a similar trend for specific measures of coercion. Reported incidents of violence against staff were 0·15 per patient stay in open-door policy wards and 0·18 in treatment-as-usual wards. There were no suicides during the randomised controlled trial period.

Interpretation: The open-door policy could be safely implemented without increased use of coercive measures. Our findings underscore the need for more reliable and relevant randomised trials to investigate how a complex intervention, such as open-door policy, can be efficiently implemented across health-care systems and contexts.

Funding: South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and The Research Council of Norway.

Background: Although there are effective psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they remain inaccessible for many people. Digitally enabled therapy is a way to overcome this problem; however, there is little evidence on which forms of these therapies are most cost effective in PTSD. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the STOP-PTSD trial, which evaluated two therapist-assisted, internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapies: cognitive therapy for PTSD (iCT-PTSD) and a programme focusing on stress management (iStress-PTSD).

Methods: In this health economic evaluation, we used data from the STOP-PTSD trial (n=217), a single-blind, randomised controlled trial, to compare iCT-PTSD and iStress-PTSD in terms of resource use and health outcomes. In the trial, participants (aged ≥18 years) who met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD were recruited from primary care therapy services in South East England. The interventions were delivered online with therapist support for the first 12 weeks, and three telephone calls over the next 3 months. Participants completed questionnaires on symptoms, wellbeing, quality of life, and resource use at baseline, 13 weeks, 26 weeks, and 39 weeks after randomisation. We used a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at 39 weeks post-randomisation, from the perspective of the English National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services and on the basis of intention-to-treat for complete cases. Treatment modules and the platform design were developed with extensive input from service users: service users also advised on the trial protocol and methods, including the health economic measures. This is a pre-planned analysis of the STOP-PTSD trial; the trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN16806208).

Findings: NHS costs were similar across treatment groups, but clinical outcomes were superior for iCT-PTSD compared with iStress-PTSD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHS costs and personal social services was estimated as £1921 per QALY. iCT-PTSD had an estimated 91·6% chance of being cost effective at the £20 000 per QALY threshold. From the societal perspective, iCT-PTSD was cost saving compared with iStress-PTSD.

Interpretation: iCT-PTSD is a cost-effective form of therapist-assisted, internet-delivered psychological therapy relative to iStress-PTSD, and it could be considered for clinical implementation.

Funding: Wellcome Trust and National Institute of Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.