Background: Schizophrenia and related disorders are highly disabling and create substantial burdens for families, communities, and health care systems. Although pharmacological treatments can often lessen the psychotic symptoms that are a hallmark of schizophrenia, they do not lessen the social and cognitive deficits that create the greatest impediments to community engagement and functional recovery. This study builds on prior research on psychosocial rehabilitation by comparing the effectiveness of two treatments demonstrated as efficacious in improving social and community functioning, Cognitive Enhancement Therapy (CET) and a version of Social Skills Training (HOPES/SST). Methods: The study uses a randomized cluster design in which a pair of clinicians at community- and hospital-based mental service centers deliver either CET or HOPES to at least one group of 6-8 eligible clients for 12 months. Clinicians are trained and then supervised weekly, with ongoing process measurement of treatment fidelity, attendance, satisfaction, and retention, and use of other services. Measures administered at baseline and at 6 and 12 months while in treatment, and then at 18 and 24 months after treatment include social adjustment, quality of life, social skills, positive and negative symptoms, and neuro- and social cognition. We hypothesize that CET will be associated with greater improvements than SST in both the primary outcome of community functioning and the secondary outcomes of neuro- and social cognition and social skills. Secondarily, we hypothesize that more cognitive impairment at baseline and younger age will predict more benefit from CET compared to HOPES. Discussion: Resource shortages endemic in mental health services and exacerbated by the pandemic highlight the importance of identifying the most effective approach to improving social and community functioning. We aim to improve understanding of the impact of two efficacious psychosocial treatments and to improve clinicians' ability to refer to both treatments the individuals who are most likely to benefit from them. We expect the result to be programmatic improvements that improve the magnitude and durability of gains in community functioning. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04321759 , registered March 25, 2020.

Substance use disorders have a profound impact on the course of severe mental illnesses and on the family, but little research has evaluated the impact of family intervention for this population. To address this question, a randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing a brief (2-3 mo) Family Education (ED) program with a longer-term (9-18 mo) program that combined education with teaching communication and problem-solving skills, Family Intervention for Dual Disorders (FIDD). A total of 108 clients (77% schizophrenia-spectrum) and a key relative were randomized to either ED or FIDD and assessed at baseline and every 6 months for 3 years. Rates of retention of families in both programs were moderate. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that clients in both programs improved in psychiatric, substance abuse, and functional outcomes, as did key relatives in knowledge of co-occurring disorders, burden, and mental health functioning. Clients in FIDD had significantly less severe overall psychiatric symptoms and psychotic symptoms and tended to improve more in functioning. Relatives in FIDD improved more in mental health functioning and knowledge of co-occurring disorders. There were no consistent differences between the programs in substance abuse severity or family burden. The findings support the utility of family intervention for co-occurring disorders, and the added benefits of communication and problem-solving training, but also suggest the need to modify these programs to retain more families in treatment in order to provide them with the information and skills they need to overcome the effects of these disorders.

Health care utilization and cost data have challenged analysts because they are often correlated over time, highly skewed, and clumped at 0. Traditional approaches do not address all these problems, and evaluators of mental health and substance abuse interventions often grapple with the problem of how to analyze these data in a way that accurately represents program impact. Recently, the traditional 2-part model has been extended to mixed-effects mixed-distribution model with correlated random effects to deal simultaneously with excess zeros, skewness, and correlated observations. We introduce and demonstrate this new method to mental health services researchers and evaluators by analyzing the data from a study of assertive community treatment (ACT). The response variable is the number of days of hospitalization, collected every 6 months over 3 years. The explanatory variable is group: ACT vs. standard case management. Diagnosis (schizophrenia vs. bipolar disorder), time, and the baseline values of hospital days are covariates. Results indicate that clients in the ACT group have a higher probability of hospital admission, but tend to have shorter lengths of stay. The mixed-distribution model provides greater specification of a model to fit these data and leads to more refined interpretation of the results.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have many benefits for persons with severe mental disorders, but they may also lead to or exacerbate substance abuse. An American Psychiatric Association taskforce established practice guidelines in 1990 to assist physicians in managing these and other potential side effects of benzodiazepine use. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of benzodiazepine use among persons with psychiatric disorders and to evaluate compliance with published prescribing guidelines. METHOD: We studied benzodiazepine use among New Hampshire Medicaid beneficiaries aged 18 to 64 years with ICD-9 diagnoses that were grouped under the headings "schizophrenia," "bipolar disorder," "major depression," and "other psychiatric disorders" from Jan. 1995 through Dec. 1999. Rates and length of use, frequency of high-potency/fast-acting prescriptions, and diazepam-equivalent dosages were compared for those with and without retrospectively determined evidence of substance abuse, substance dependence, or a procedure code indicating treatment for a substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Five-year prevalence of benzodiazepine use for persons with and without SUD was 63% versus 54% for schizophrenia, 75% versus 58% for bipolar disorder, 66% versus 49% for major depression, and 48% versus 40% for other psychiatric disorders. Differences were statistically significant over 5 years and in 1999 (p <.0001). Among persons with major depression or other psychiatric disorders, those with comorbid SUD were more likely to use fast-acting/high-potency benzodiazepines; there were no such differences for those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Persons with bipolar disorder or other psychiatric disorders and SUD received significantly higher diazepam-equivalent dosages than did those without SUD. CONCLUSION: Contrary to published guidelines, rates of benzodiazepine use are higher among Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental illness and co-occurring SUD than among persons with severe mental illness alone. Additional research and possibly a reassessment of prescribing guidelines are recommended.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in comparison to Standard Case Management (SCM) for persons with severe mental illness and substance use disorders. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Original data on the effectiveness and social costs of ACT and SCM that were collected between 1989 and 1995. Seven community mental health centers in New Hampshire provided both types of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Persons with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder and a concurrent substance use disorder were randomly assigned to ACT or SCM and followed for three years. The primary variables assessed were substance use, psychiatric symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and social costs. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from interviews at six-month intervals with persons enrolled in treatment and with their service providers. Social cost and service utilization data came from client reports; interviews with informal caregivers; provider information systems and Medicaid claims; law enforcement agencies; courts; and community service providers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants in both groups showed significant reductions in substance use over time. Focusing on quality of life and substance use outcomes, ACT and SCM were not significantly different in cost-effectiveness over the entire three-year study period. Longitudinal analyses showed that SCM tended to be more efficient during the first two years but that ACT was significantly more efficient than SCM during the final year of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In an adequately funded system, ACT is not more cost-effective than SCM. However, ACT efficiency appears to improve over time.

Recent evaluations of ACT programs have produced equivocal findings, often leading to the invocation of methodological problems as responsible for the lack of positive results. This paper discusses issues of theory and methodology as they pertain to improving research of ACT, with particular attention paid to issues of sampling, process evaluation, measurement, and data analysis.

Integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment within an assertive community treatment (ACT) approach was compared to that within a standard case management approach for 223 patients with dual disorders over three years. ACT patients showed greater improvements on some measures of substance abuse and quality of life, but the groups were equivalent on most measures, including stable community days, hospital days, psychiatric symptoms, and remission of substance use disorder.

Administrators, consumers, and policy makers are increasingly interested in supported employment as a way of helping persons with severe mental illness get and keep competitive jobs. However, in an atmosphere of increased expectations for performance and declining public financing, administrators want to know the costs and benefits of different approaches before they reallocate scarce treatment or rehabilitative dollars. This article discusses the net benefits of two approaches to supported employment that were compared in a randomized trial: Individual Placement and Support (IPS) and Group Skills Training (GST). The authors analyze costs and benefits from societal, government, and consumer perspectives. Although a previous analysis showed that IPS participants were significantly more likely to find work, worked more hours, and had higher earnings, net benefits of the two programs were not significantly different. The authors also discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis in mental health care and suggest future directions for policy and research.