PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Stephen Pilling

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen Pilling.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to mental health services in England (the ODDESSI Trial): a multisite cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Open Dialogue is a person-centred, transdiagnostic model of mental health care that emphasises continuity, therapeutic relationships, and collaboration with the service user's social network. Open Dialogue is a service-wide approach to care involving network meetings with the service user, members of their social network, and usually two practitioners who support the network throughout the duration of care. In this cluster-randomised trial, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to community mental health services in England. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel two-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled superiority trial was conducted in mental health services in five National Health Service trusts in London and the South of England. Clusters were defined at the level of primary care practices within service catchment areas. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older presenting in crisis to mental health services and registered with a practice within trial clusters. Randomisation was done at the cluster level (1:1), stratified by catchment area, and balanced on average general practice (GP) list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). The chief investigator, senior statistician, and assessors of the primary outcome were masked in the study. Participants either received Open Dialogue or treatment as usual, which refers to the functional team model currently implemented throughout English mental health services. The primary outcome was time (days) to first relapse following initial recovery from the index crisis censored at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Participant-reported secondary outcomes were EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale, Social Provisions Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, measured at five timepoints over 2 years, and clinical measures were extracted from electronic health records. People with relevant lived experience were involved in the design and execution of the study. Fidelity to the model of care in Open Dialogue and treatment as usual, and adherence to the delivery of Open Dialogue, were measured prior to each site starting participant recruitment, then every 6 months thereafter until the final participant follow-up in that site. The trial was retrospectively registered (ISRCTN52653325) and is complete. FINDINGS: 185 general practices associated with six mental health Trusts across England were identified for screening. 105 practices were excluded, and 80 were included in cluster formation, forming 32 clusters that were randomly assigned (16 to treatment as usual and 16 to the Open Dialogue intervention). One mental health trust (two clusters) withdrew, resulting in five mental health trusts (30 clusters) participating in the trial. Between June 25, 2019, and Dec 9, 2021, 494 participants (266 [54%] female gender, 221 [45%] male gender, 341 [69%] White British) with a mean age of 38·1 years (SD 13·4) provided consent for study inclusion (223 in the treatment as usual group and 271 in the Open Dialogue group). Of these, 174 (78%) in the treatment as usual group and 225 (83%) in the Open Dialogue group recovered and had data enabling relapse determination; there was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of time to relapse following initial recovery (marginal hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·67-1·32]). For secondary outcomes, Open Dialogue was associated with significantly lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to crisis care or secondary mental health services, and with improvements in self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with services. There were no significant differences in social network quality or size. There were 386 serious adverse events (281 in the treatment as usual group and 105 in the Open Dialogue group); 376 (97%) were deemed to be unrelated to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Open Dialogue did not reduce time to first relapse compared with treatment as usual, the primary outcome, but it reduced acute inpatient bed use, improved service user reported outcomes and experience, and there were no significant safety concerns. Further investigation is required to determine whether Open Dialogue can enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of crisis care and continuing care in community mental health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

The REACT study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatment in north London.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of care from assertive community treatment teams with care by community mental health teams for people with serious mental illnesses. DESIGN: Non-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two inner London boroughs. PARTICIPANTS: 251 men and women under the care of adult secondary mental health services with recent high use of inpatient care and difficulties engaging with community services. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment from assertive community treatment team (127 participants) or continuation of care from community mental health team (124 participants). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was inpatient bed use 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, social function, client satisfaction, and engagement with services. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in inpatient bed use (median difference 1, 95% confidence interval -16 to 38) or in clinical or social outcomes for the two treatment groups. Clients who received care from the assertive community treatment team seemed better engaged (adapted homeless engagement acceptance schedule: difference in means 1.1, 1.0 to 1.9), and those who agreed to be interviewed were more satisfied with services (adapted client satisfaction questionnaire: difference in means 7.14, 0.9 to 13.4). CONCLUSIONS: Community mental health teams are able to support people with serious mental illnesses as effectively as assertive community treatment teams, but assertive community treatment may be better at engaging clients and may lead to greater satisfaction with services.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Treatment options in moderate and severe depression: decision analysis supporting a clinical guideline.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for depression include antidepressants, psychological therapy and a combination of the two. AIMS: To develop cost-effective clinical guidelines. METHOD: Systematic literature reviews were used to identify clinical, utility and cost data. A decision analysis was then conducted to compare the benefits and costs of antidepressants with combination therapy for moderate and severe depression in secondary care in the UK. RESULTS: Over the 15-month analysis period, combination therapy resulted in higher costs and an expected 0.16 increase per person in the probability of remission and no relapse compared with antidepressants. The cost per additional successfully treated patient was 4056 UK pounds (95% CI1400-18300); the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was 5777 UK pounds (95% CI1900-33 800) for severe depression and 14 540 UK pounds (95% CI 4800-79 400) for moderate depression. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy is likely to be a cost-effective first-line secondary care treatment for severe depression. Its cost-effectiveness for moderate depression is more uncertain from current evidence. Targeted combination therapy could improve resource utilisation.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMed2005

Randomised controlled trial of acute mental health care by a crisis resolution team: the north Islington crisis study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a crisis resolution team. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 260 residents of the inner London Borough of Islington who were experiencing crises severe enough for hospital admission to be considered. INTERVENTIONS: Acute care including a 24 hour crisis resolution team (experimental group), compared with standard care from inpatient services and community mental health teams (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admission and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients in the experimental group were less likely to be admitted to hospital in the eight weeks after the crisis (odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.32), though compulsory admission was not significantly reduced. A difference of 1.6 points in the mean score on the client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was not quite significant (P = 0.07), although it became so after adjustment for baseline characteristics (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Crisis resolution teams can reduce hospital admissions in mental health crises. They may also increase satisfaction in patients, but this was an equivocal finding.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The health service use and cost of eating disorders.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden and health service use of eating disorders have received little attention, although such data are necessary to estimate the implications of any changes in clinical practice for patient care and health care resource requirements. This systematic review reports the current international evidence on the resource use and cost of eating disorders. METHOD: Relevant literature (1980-2002) was identified from searches of electronic databases and expert contacts. RESULTS: Two cost-of-illness studies from the UK and Germany, one burden-of-disease study from Australia and 14 other publications with relevant data from the UK, USA, Austria, Denmark and The Netherlands could be identified. In the UK, the health care cost of anorexia nervosa was estimated to be 4.2 million UK pounds in 1990. In Germany, the health care cost was 65 million Euro for anorexia nervosa and 10 million Euro for bulimia nervosa during 1998. The Australian study reported the health care costs of eating disorders to be Aus $22 million for year 1993/1994. Other costing studies focused mostly on in-patient care reporting highly variable estimates. There is a dearth of research on non-health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence reflects a general under-detection and under-treatment of eating disorders. Although both cost-of-illness studies may significantly underestimate the costs of eating disorders because of important omitted cost items, other evidence suggests that the economic burden is likely to be substantial. Comprehensive data on the resource use of patients with eating disorders are urgently needed for better estimations, and to be able to determine cost-effective treatment options.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2005

Outcomes of crises before and after introduction of a crisis resolution team.

BACKGROUND: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) are being introduced throughout England, but their evidence base is limited. AIMS: To compare outcomes of crises before and after introduction of a CRT. METHOD: A new methodology was developed for identification and operational definition of crises. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare cohorts presenting just before and just after a CRT was established. RESULTS: Following introduction of the CRT, the admission rate in the 6 weeks after a crisis fell from 71% to 49% (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.70). A difference of 5.6 points (95% CI 2.0-8.3) on mean Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) score favoured the CRT. These findings remained significant after adjustment for baseline differences. No clear difference emerged in involuntary hospitalisations, symptoms, social functioning or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: CRTs may prevent some admissions and patients prefer them, although other outcomes appear unchanged in the short term.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Developing and implementing clinical guidelines: lessons from the NICE schizophrenia guideline.

This paper describes the development of the clinical practice guideline on schizophrenia from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and outlines its main recommendations. It reviews the evidence on effective implementation of guidelines generally and examines issues specific to the schizophrenia guideline. It describes NICE's approach to supporting implementation alongside that developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) and looks at local implementation examples for schizophrenia. The paper highlights key considerations for the forthcoming revision of the NICE schizophrenia guideline. It makes recommendations concerning the scope of the guideline and the quality and type of data available to the guideline developers: the lack of data on outcomes such as quality of life and social functioning, the challenges presented by unpublished papers and areas where evidence is limited. Since publication of the schizophrenia guideline, the NICE development process has undergone significant methodological improvements. The grading of evidence has been refined and more recently NICE proposed that grading of recommendations be dropped. Consensus methods are increasingly and more effectively used to deal with areas where the evidence-base is limited. NICE and the NCCMH have developed a more implementation-ready range of guideline products. The initial NICE guideline on schizophrenia was positively received nationally and internationally. This paper highlights challenges that will be involved in updating the guideline and ways to refine the methodology of development. Ultimately the impact of the guideline will be measured not in its methodological rigor but in how its successful implementation improves patient care.

Academies and Institutes↗