Search

Objective: Nonadherence in bipolar disorder (BD) ranges from 20% to 60%. Customized adherence enhancement (CAE) is a brief, BD-specific approach that targets individual adherence barriers. This prospective, 6-month, randomized controlled trial conducted from October 2012 to July 2017 compared CAE versus a rigorous BD-specific educational program (EDU) on adherence, symptoms, and functional outcomes in poorly adherent individuals., Methods: One hundred eighty-four participants with DSM-IV BD were randomized to CAE (n = 92) or EDU (n = 92). Primary outcome was adherence change measured by the Tablets Routine Questionnaire (TRQ) and BD symptoms measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Other outcomes were scores on the Global Assessment of Functioning, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Assessments were conducted at screening, baseline, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and 6 months., Results: The sample mean (SD) age was 47.40 (10.46) years; 68.5% were female, and 63.0% were African American. At screening, individuals missed a mean (SD) of 55.15% (28.22%) of prescribed BD drugs within the past week and 48.01% (28.46%) in the past month. Study attrition was < 20%. At 6 months, individuals in CAE had significantly improved past-week (P = .001) and past-month (P = .048) TRQ scores versus those in EDU. Past-week TRQ score improvement remained significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There were no treatment arm differences in BPRS scores or other symptoms, possibly related to low symptom baseline values. Baseline-to-6-month comparison showed significantly higher GAF scores (P = .036) for CAE versus EDU. Although both groups used more mental health services at 6 months compared to baseline, increase for CAE was significantly less than that for EDU (P = .046)., Conclusions: Whereas both CAE and EDU were associated with improved outcomes, CAE had additional positive effects on adherence, functioning, and mental health resource use compared to EDU., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00183495., (© Copyright 2018 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objectives: A 60-week randomized controlled trial assessed the effects of targeted training in illness management (TTIM) versus treatment as usual among 200 individuals with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus., Methods: The study used the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) to assess psychiatric symptoms; the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) to assess functioning; the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to assess general health, and serum glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to assess diabetes control., Results: Participants' mean±SD age was 52.7±9.5 years, and 54% were African American. They were diagnosed as having depression (48%), schizophrenia (25%), and bipolar disorder (28%). At baseline, depression severity was substantial but psychosis severity was modest. At 60 weeks, there was greater improvement among TTIM participants versus treatment-as-usual recipients on the CGI (p<.001), the MADRS (p=.016), and the GAF (p=.003). Diabetes knowledge was significantly improved among TTIM participants but not in the treatment-as-usual group. In post hoc analyses among participants whose HbA1c levels at baseline met recommendations set by the American Diabetes Association for persons with high comorbidity (53%), TTIM participants had minimal change in HbA1c over the 60-week follow-up, whereas HbA1c levels worsened in the treatment-as-usual group., Conclusions: TTIM was associated with improved psychiatric symptoms, functioning, and diabetes knowledge compared with treatment as usual. Among participants with better diabetes control at baseline, TTIM participants had better diabetes control at 60 weeks compared with recipients of treatment as usual.

Objectives: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia), and diabetes (DM), face significant challenges in managing their physical and mental health. The objective of this study was to assess perceived barriers to self-management among patients with both SMI and DM in order to inform healthcare delivery practices., Methods: We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with persons who had diagnoses of both SMI and DM. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis with an emphasis on dominant themes., Results: Transcript-based analysis generated 3 major domains of barriers to disease self-management among patients with both DM and SMI: (1) personal level barriers (stress, isolation, stigma); (2) family and community level barriers (lack of support from family and friends); and (3) provider and health care system level barriers (poor relationships and communication with providers, fragmentation of care)., Conclusions: Care approaches that provide social support, help in managing stress, optimize communication with providers, and reduce compartmentalization of medical and psychiatric care are needed to help these vulnerable individuals avoid health complications and premature mortality.

Objective: Data from 157 individuals with serious mental illness and comorbid diabetes enrolled in an ongoing treatment study were used to examine clinical correlates of diabetes control., Methods: Factors assessed included depressive symptoms (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale), global psychopathology severity (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), a biomarker of diabetes control., Results: Seventy-seven participants had depression, 40 had schizophrenia, and 40 had bipolar disorder. Most were moderately to severely depressed with poor diabetes control. No correlation between diagnosis and diabetes control was found after adjustment for gender, race, health literacy, diabetes duration, and diabetes knowledge. Greater depression severity and longer diabetes duration were related to poorer diabetes control. Lower severity of global psychopathology was related to poorer diabetes control, perhaps because of overall low levels of psychosis and mania., Conclusions: People with serious mental illness and diabetes face multiple challenges, which, along with severe depression, may impede diabetes self-management.

Background: Self-management of bipolar disorder (BD) is challenging for many individuals. Material: Interviews were used to assess perceived barriers to disease self-management among 21 high-risk patients with BD. Content analysis, with an emphasis on dominant themes, was used to analyze the data. Results: Three major domains of barriers emerged: individual barriers (psychological, knowledge, behavioral and physical health); family/community-level barriers (lack of support and resources); and provider/healthcare system (inadequate communication and access to care). Conclusion: Care approaches providing social and peer support, optimizing communication with providers and integrating medical and psychiatric care may improve self-management of BD in this vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective While previous work has demonstrated elevation of both comorbid anxiety disorders and diabetes mellitus type II in individuals with serious mental illness, little is known regarding the impact of comorbid anxiety on diabetes mellitus type II outcomes in serious mental illness populations. We analyzed baseline data from patients with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type II to examine relationships between comorbid anxiety, glucose control as measured by hemoglobin A1c score, and overall illness burden. Methods Using baseline data from an ongoing prospective treatment study involving 157 individuals with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type II, we compared individuals with and without a comorbid anxiety disorder and compared hemoglobin A1c levels between these groups to assess the relationship between anxiety and management of diabetes mellitus type II. We conducted a similar analysis using cumulative number of anxiety diagnoses as a proxy for anxiety load. Finally, we searched for associations between anxiety and overall medical illness burden as measured by Charlson score. Results Anxiety disorders were seen in 33.1% (N = 52) of individuals with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type II and were associated with increased severity of depressive symptoms and decreased function. Hemoglobin A1c levels were not significantly different in those with or without anxiety, and having multiple anxiety disorders was not associated with differences in diabetes mellitus type II control. However, depressive symptoms were significantly associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels. Neither comorbid anxiety nor anxiety load was significantly associated with overall medical burden. Conclusion One in three people with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type II had anxiety. Depressive symptoms were significantly associated with Hb1Ac levels while anxiety symptoms had no relation to hemoglobin A1c; this is consistent with previously published work. More studies are needed to better understand the relationship between depression, anxiety, and health management in people with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Serious mental illness is disproportionately common in people with epilepsy and contributes to complications and mortality. Few care approaches specifically target individuals who have epilepsy and severe mental illness. We used an iterative process to refine an existing intervention and tested the novel intervention, T argeted Self-Management for Ep i lepsy and Me ntal Illness (TIME) in individuals with epilepsy and comorbid mental illness (E-MI). Methods The TIME intervention was developed with input from a community advisory board and then tested for feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy in people with E-MI, using a 16-week prospective, randomized controlled design comparing TIME (N = 22) vs. treatment as usual (TAU, N = 22). Primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms, assessed by the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary assessments included global psychiatric symptom severity, seizure frequency, sleep patterns, quality of life, stigma, social support, and self-efficacy. Results There were 44 individuals enrolled, mean age 48.25 (SD = 11.82) with 25 (56.8%) African-Americans. The majority (N = 31, 70.5%) were unemployed, and most (N = 41, 95.5%) had annual income < U.S. $25,000. With respect to study retention, there were 36 individuals (18 in TIME, 18 in TAU) assessed at 12 weeks and 35 individuals (19 in TIME, 16 in TAU) assessed at 16 weeks. There was a significant effect for MADRS (p = 0.036; effect size of 0.70), with lower MADRS at 16 weeks in TIME, while TAU MADRS did not change. Differences between most secondary measures were not statistically significant. Significance The TIME intervention engages individuals to actively participate in self-management and can reduce depression in E-MI. Given the high morbidity and mortality associated with epilepsy complicated by serious mental illness, additional research is needed to better identify how TIME might be implemented in routine care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]