Andreas Bechdolf, Konstantinos Nikolaidis, Sebastian von Peter, Gerhard Längle, Peter Brieger, Jürgen Timm, Reinhold Killian, Lasse Fischer, Svenja Raschmann, Julian Schwarz, Martin Holzke, Sandeep Rout, Constance Hirschmeier, Johannes Hamann, Uwe Herwig, Janina Richter, Johanna Baumgardt, Stefan Weinmann
{"title":"强化家庭治疗后精神病院服务的使用:非随机临床试验。","authors":"Andreas Bechdolf, Konstantinos Nikolaidis, Sebastian von Peter, Gerhard Längle, Peter Brieger, Jürgen Timm, Reinhold Killian, Lasse Fischer, Svenja Raschmann, Julian Schwarz, Martin Holzke, Sandeep Rout, Constance Hirschmeier, Johannes Hamann, Uwe Herwig, Janina Richter, Johanna Baumgardt, Stefan Weinmann","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Home treatment (HT) has been associated with fewer inpatient treatment (IT) readmission days but lacks evidence on reducing combined psychiatric hospital service use (IT, HT, day clinic).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the association of intensive home treatment (IHT) compared with IT regarding readmission rate, social outcomes, and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This quasi-experimental, nonrandomized trial was conducted from 2020 to 2022 in 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to compare both treatment models at the 12-month follow-up using standardized instruments and routine hospital data. All patients were screened until the target sample size was reached, based on these criteria: stable residence with privacy for sessions, no child welfare risk, primary diagnosis within International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes F0X to F6X, residence in the catchment area, no commitment order, no acute suicidality or severe aggression requiring hospitalization, capacity to consent, not participating in other interventional studies, sufficient German language skills, no substantial cognitive deficits or intellectual impairment, and no more than 7 days in IHT or IT before recruitment. Statistical analysis was performed from February to November 2023.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>IHT provided daily acute psychiatric treatment at home, while IT was psychiatric inpatient treatment as usual. The mean treatment duration of the index treatment was 37.2 days for IHT and 28.2 days for IT.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The inpatient readmission rate was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were combined readmission rate, total inpatient days, job integration, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, symptom severity, and recovery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1396 individuals, 200 patients receiving IHT and 200 patients receiving IT were included (264 female [65%]; mean [SD] age, 45.45 [15.83] years [range, 18-88 years]). Baseline sociodemographic and psychometric characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At 12-month follow-up, patients in the IHT group had lower inpatient readmission rate (IHT vs IT: 31.12% vs 49.74% IT; mean difference, 18% [95% CI, 9%-28%; P < .001), combined readmission rate (mean difference, 13% [95% CI, 4%-24%; P < .001), and fewer inpatient days (mean difference, 6.82 days; P < .001) than the IT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This nonrandomized clinical trial found that patients receiving IHT had a lower likelihood of utilizing hospital-based psychiatric services and spent fewer inpatient days, suggesting that IHT is a viable alternative to IT.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04745507.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 11","pages":"e2445042"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568461/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilization of Psychiatric Hospital Services Following Intensive Home Treatment: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Bechdolf, Konstantinos Nikolaidis, Sebastian von Peter, Gerhard Längle, Peter Brieger, Jürgen Timm, Reinhold Killian, Lasse Fischer, Svenja Raschmann, Julian Schwarz, Martin Holzke, Sandeep Rout, Constance Hirschmeier, Johannes Hamann, Uwe Herwig, Janina Richter, Johanna Baumgardt, Stefan Weinmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Home treatment (HT) has been associated with fewer inpatient treatment (IT) readmission days but lacks evidence on reducing combined psychiatric hospital service use (IT, HT, day clinic).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the association of intensive home treatment (IHT) compared with IT regarding readmission rate, social outcomes, and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This quasi-experimental, nonrandomized trial was conducted from 2020 to 2022 in 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to compare both treatment models at the 12-month follow-up using standardized instruments and routine hospital data. All patients were screened until the target sample size was reached, based on these criteria: stable residence with privacy for sessions, no child welfare risk, primary diagnosis within International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes F0X to F6X, residence in the catchment area, no commitment order, no acute suicidality or severe aggression requiring hospitalization, capacity to consent, not participating in other interventional studies, sufficient German language skills, no substantial cognitive deficits or intellectual impairment, and no more than 7 days in IHT or IT before recruitment. Statistical analysis was performed from February to November 2023.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>IHT provided daily acute psychiatric treatment at home, while IT was psychiatric inpatient treatment as usual. The mean treatment duration of the index treatment was 37.2 days for IHT and 28.2 days for IT.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The inpatient readmission rate was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were combined readmission rate, total inpatient days, job integration, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, symptom severity, and recovery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1396 individuals, 200 patients receiving IHT and 200 patients receiving IT were included (264 female [65%]; mean [SD] age, 45.45 [15.83] years [range, 18-88 years]). Baseline sociodemographic and psychometric characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At 12-month follow-up, patients in the IHT group had lower inpatient readmission rate (IHT vs IT: 31.12% vs 49.74% IT; mean difference, 18% [95% CI, 9%-28%; P < .001), combined readmission rate (mean difference, 13% [95% CI, 4%-24%; P < .001), and fewer inpatient days (mean difference, 6.82 days; P < .001) than the IT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This nonrandomized clinical trial found that patients receiving IHT had a lower likelihood of utilizing hospital-based psychiatric services and spent fewer inpatient days, suggesting that IHT is a viable alternative to IT.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04745507.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"7 11\",\"pages\":\"e2445042\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568461/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45042\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45042","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
重要性:家庭治疗(HT)与减少住院治疗(IT)再入院天数有关,但缺乏减少精神科医院综合服务使用(IT、HT、日间门诊)的证据:目的:评估强化家庭治疗(IHT)与住院治疗相比在再入院率、社会效果和临床效果方面的相关性:这项准实验性非随机试验于 2020 年至 2022 年在德国的 10 家精神病院进行。采用倾向评分(PS)匹配法,使用标准化工具和医院常规数据对两种治疗模式进行为期 12 个月的随访比较。在达到目标样本量之前,将对所有患者进行筛选,筛选标准包括:有稳定住所且有治疗隐私、无儿童福利风险、主要诊断符合《国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类》第十次修订版代码 F0X 至 F6X、居住在服务区、无收容令、无急性自杀倾向或严重攻击行为而需住院治疗、有同意能力、未参与其他干预性研究、有足够的德语语言能力、无严重认知缺陷或智力障碍、招募前在 IHT 或 IT 治疗不超过 7 天。统计分析于2023年2月至11月进行:干预措施:IHT 每天在家提供急性精神病治疗,而 IT 则像往常一样提供精神病住院治疗。指标治疗的平均疗程为:IHT为37.2天,IT为28.2天:主要结果和测量方法:住院患者再入院率是主要结果。次要结果包括再入院率、住院总天数、工作融入、生活质量、社会心理功能、症状严重程度和康复情况:在 1396 名患者中,200 名患者接受了 IHT 治疗,200 名患者接受了 IT 治疗(264 名女性 [65%];平均 [SD] 年龄为 45.45 [15.83] 岁 [18-88 岁])。两组患者的基线社会人口学特征和心理测量特征无显著差异。在 12 个月的随访中,IHT 组患者的住院再入院率较低(IHT vs IT:31.12% vs 49.74% IT;平均差异为 18% [95% CI,9%-28%;P 结论和意义:这项非随机临床试验发现,接受 IHT 治疗的患者使用医院精神科服务的可能性较低,住院天数较少,这表明 IHT 是替代 IT 的一种可行方法:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04745507。
Utilization of Psychiatric Hospital Services Following Intensive Home Treatment: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Home treatment (HT) has been associated with fewer inpatient treatment (IT) readmission days but lacks evidence on reducing combined psychiatric hospital service use (IT, HT, day clinic).
Objective: To assess the association of intensive home treatment (IHT) compared with IT regarding readmission rate, social outcomes, and clinical outcomes.
Design, setting, and participants: This quasi-experimental, nonrandomized trial was conducted from 2020 to 2022 in 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to compare both treatment models at the 12-month follow-up using standardized instruments and routine hospital data. All patients were screened until the target sample size was reached, based on these criteria: stable residence with privacy for sessions, no child welfare risk, primary diagnosis within International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes F0X to F6X, residence in the catchment area, no commitment order, no acute suicidality or severe aggression requiring hospitalization, capacity to consent, not participating in other interventional studies, sufficient German language skills, no substantial cognitive deficits or intellectual impairment, and no more than 7 days in IHT or IT before recruitment. Statistical analysis was performed from February to November 2023.
Intervention: IHT provided daily acute psychiatric treatment at home, while IT was psychiatric inpatient treatment as usual. The mean treatment duration of the index treatment was 37.2 days for IHT and 28.2 days for IT.
Main outcomes and measures: The inpatient readmission rate was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were combined readmission rate, total inpatient days, job integration, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, symptom severity, and recovery.
Results: Of 1396 individuals, 200 patients receiving IHT and 200 patients receiving IT were included (264 female [65%]; mean [SD] age, 45.45 [15.83] years [range, 18-88 years]). Baseline sociodemographic and psychometric characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At 12-month follow-up, patients in the IHT group had lower inpatient readmission rate (IHT vs IT: 31.12% vs 49.74% IT; mean difference, 18% [95% CI, 9%-28%; P < .001), combined readmission rate (mean difference, 13% [95% CI, 4%-24%; P < .001), and fewer inpatient days (mean difference, 6.82 days; P < .001) than the IT group.
Conclusions and relevance: This nonrandomized clinical trial found that patients receiving IHT had a lower likelihood of utilizing hospital-based psychiatric services and spent fewer inpatient days, suggesting that IHT is a viable alternative to IT.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health.
JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.