Search

Abstract Background People with dual diagnosis die prematurely compared to the general population, and general practice might serve as a setting in the healthcare system to mend this gap in health inequity. However, little is known about which interventions that have been tested in this setting. Aim To scope the literature on interventions targeting patients with dual diagnosis in a general practice setting, the outcomes used, and the findings. Design and setting A scoping review of patients with dual diagnosis in general practice. Methods From a predeveloped search string, we used PubMed (Medline), PsychInfo, and Embase to identify scientific articles on interventions. Studies were excluded if they did not evaluate an intervention, if patients were under 18 years of age, and if not published in English. Duplicates were removed and all articles were initially screened by title and abstract and subsequent fulltext were read by two authors. Conflicts were discussed within the author group. A summative synthesis of the findings was performed to present the results. Results Seven articles were included in the analysis. Most studies investigated integrated care models between behavioural treatment and primary care, and a single study investigated the delivery of Cognitive Behavioral treatment (CBT). Outcomes were changes in mental illness scores and substance or alcohol use, treatment utilization, and implementation of the intervention in question. No studies revealed significant outcomes for patients with dual diagnosis. Conclusion Few intervention studies targeting patients with dual diagnosis exist in general practice. This calls for further investigation of the possibilities of implementing interventions targeting this patient group in general practice.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the feasibility and fidelity of implementing and assessing the SOFIA coordinated care program aimed at lowering mortality and increasing quality of life in patients with severe mental illness by improving somatic health care in general practice. Design A cluster-randomised, non-blinded controlled pilot trial. Setting General Practice in Denmark. Intervention The SOFIA coordinated care program comprised extended structured consultations carried out by the GP, group-based training of GPs and staff, and a handbook with information on signposting patients to relevant municipal, health, and social initiatives. Patients Persons aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of psychotic, bipolar, or severe depressive disorder. Main outcome measures We collected quantitative data on the delivery, recruitment and retention rates of practices and patients, and response rates of questionnaires MMQ and EQ-5D-5 L. Results From November 2020 to March 2021, nine practices were enrolled and assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the intervention group (n = 6) or control group (n = 3). Intervention group practices included 64 patients and Control practices included 23. The extended consultations were delivered with a high level of fidelity in the general practices; however, thresholds for collecting outcome measures, and recruitment of practices and patients were not reached. Conclusion Our findings suggest that delivering the coordinated care program in a fully powered trial in primary care is likely feasible. However, the recruitment methodology requires improvement to ensure sufficient recruitment and minimize selective inclusion. Trial registration The date of pilot trial protocol registration was 05/11/2020, and the registration number is NCT04618250.

Introduction Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity.Methods and analysis In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere.Ethics and dissemination The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT05676541.

Abstract Background Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors’ experiences of barriers for collaboration. Method We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. Conclusion Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. However, professional and ideological barriers also contribute. Psychiatry does not consider general practice to be part of the treatment team although general practitioners are left with responsibility for decisions taken in psychiatry; and different ideologies and treatment principles in psychiatry and municipal social psychiatry hamper the dialogue between them. There is a need to rethink the organization to avoid that the three sectors live autonomous lives with different cultures and lack of collaboration.

Abstract Background An acquired brain injury (ABI) is a complex injury often followed by a broad range of cognitive, physical, emotional, and behavioral disabilities. Because of these disabilities, vocational rehabilitation (VR) is a challenging task, however, of great importance, since approximately 75% of the patients with ABI are of working age. Thus, standardized clinically effective and cost-effective methodologies regarding VR for patients with ABI are highly needed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of an individually targeted manual-based VR for patient with ABI compared to conventional VR (usual care). Methods This study is an interventional, two-arm, six-month follow-up, cluster randomized controlled trial involving four municipalities in the Zealand Region and the Capital Region of Denmark. A total of 84 patients with ABI evenly distributed across four municipalities will be included in the study. The patients will randomly be allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the VR intervention provided by a specialized Brain Injury Centre or the conventional VR provided by the municipalities (usual care). The six- to nine-month intervention will consist of individual and group therapies as well as a work placement program including supported employment. Furthermore, the intervention will include a family intervention program followed up by support to one individual family caregiver. The primary outcomes are increased work or study rate at six-month follow-up. Moreover, a budget impact analysis and possibly a cost-utility analysis of the intervention will be performed. Discussion This study consists of a comprehensive multidiciplinary VR intervention involving several parties such as the municipalities, a specialized rehabilitation team, and patients’ own family caregivers. If this intervention is proven successful when compared to the conventional VR, it will provide evidence for a manual-based individualized holistic approach in returning to work after an ABI. Furthermore, the study will contribute with novel knowledge regarding feasibility and clinical effectiveness of the VR intervention relevant to clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03086031 . Registered on 21 March 2017.