Clinical supervision in four mental health professions: A review of the evidence

This paper examines a range of theoretical issues and the empirical evidence relating to clinical supervision in four mental health professions, namely clinical psychology, occupational therapy, social work, and speech pathology. Despite the widespread acceptance of the value of supervision among practitioners and the large quantity of literature on the topic, there is very little empirical evidence in this area. It is not clear whether supervision actually produces a change in clinician behaviour, nor whether it produces benefits in terms of client outcomes. To date, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate which styles of supervision are most beneficial for particular types of staff, in terms of their level of experience or learning style. The data suggest that directive forms of supervision, rather than unstructured approaches, are preferred by relatively inexperienced practitioners, and that experienced clinicians also value direct supervision methods when learning new skills or dealing with complex or crisis situations. The available evidence suggests that supervisors typically receive little training in supervision methods. However, to date, we have little information to guide us as to the most effective ways of training supervisors. While acknowledging the urgent need for research, the paper concludes that supervision is likely to form a valuable component of professional development for mental health professionals.

Review of "Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction"

Review of Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reductionbby K. STRATTON, P. SHEATHE, R. WALLACE & S. BANDURANT Washington DC, National Academy Press, 2001, xix + 636 pp, US$49.95, ISBN 0309 07282 4 (hbk)

Carbamazepine augmentation for schizophrenia: How good is the evidence?

Background: Augmentation strategies in schizophrenia treatment remain an important issue because despite the introduction of several new antipsychotics, many patients remain treatment resistant. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of one frequently used adjunctive compound: carbamazepine. Data sources and study selection: Randomized controlled trials comparing carbamazopine (as a sole or as an adjunctive compound) with placebo or no intervention in participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were searched for by accessing 7 electronic databases, cross-referencing publications cited in pertinent studies, and contacting drug companies that manufacture carbamazepine. Method: The identified studies were independently inspected and their quality assessed by 2 reviewers, Because the study results were generally incompletely reported, original patient data were requested from the authors; data were received for 8 of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the present analysis, allowing for a reanalysis of the primary data. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio and continuous data were analyzed using standardized mean differences, both specified with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Ten studies (total N = 283 subjects) were included. Carbamazepine was not effective in preventing relapse in the only randomized controlled trial that compared carbamazepine monotherapy with placebo. Carbamazepine tended to be less effective than perphenazine in the only trial comparing carbamazepine with an antipsychotic. Although there was a trend indicating a benefit from carbamazepine as an adjunct to antipsychotics, this trend did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: At present, this augmentation strategy cannot be recommended for routine use. The most promising targets for future trials are patients with excitement, aggression, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type.

Evidence and information for health policy: a decade of change

Over the past decade or so, there has been increasing demand for greater clarity about the major causes of disease and injury, how these differentially affect populations, and how they are changing. In part, this demand has been motivated by resource constraints and a realisation that better health is possible with more informed allocation of resources. At the same time, there has been a change in the way population health and its determinants are quantified, with a much closer integration of the quantitative population sciences (such as epidemiology, demography and health economics) to strengthen and broaden the evidence base for healthcare policy.

Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status

Objectives: This pilot study describes a modelling approach to translate group-level changes in health status into changes in preference values, by using the effect size (ES) to summarize group-level improvement. Methods: ESs are the standardized mean difference between treatment groups in standard deviation (SD) units. Vignettes depicting varying severity in SD decrements on the SF-12 mental health summary scale, with corresponding symptom severity profiles, were valued by a convenience sample of general practitioners (n = 42) using the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off methods. Translation factors between ES differences and change in preference value were developed for five mental disorders, such that ES from published meta-analyses could be transformed into predicted changes in preference values. Results: An ES difference in health status was associated with an average 0.171-0.204 difference in preference value using the RS, and 0.104-0.158 using the time trade off. Conclusions: This observed relationship may be particular to the specific versions of the measures employed in the present study. With further development using different raters and preference measures, this approach may expand the evidence base available for modelling preference change for economic analyses from existing data.

Review of the evidence for prehospital administration of benzyl penicillin in meningoccocal septicaemia - experience in Queensland

Meningococcal disease is a rare but potential killer in both adults and children. Community acquired meningococcal disease is caused by a variety of serogroups of Neisseria meningitides. Of the five main subgroups, A, B, C, W135 and Y, serogroups, A and Y are rarely identified in Australia. Alternatively, Serogroup B accounts for the highest number of cases followed by serogroup C strains. Meningococcal infection causes two distinct clinical profiles, though dual presentations are not uncommon. The first, meningitis presenting alone, is the more common form of infection and requires urgent but not immediate medical treatment. Conversely the second presentation, meningococcal septicaemia, is considered a medical emergency. In Queensland, careful and detailed consideration of the evidence for introduction of benzyl penicillin for the prehospital treatment of meningococcal septicaemia has been conducted. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the septicaemic presentation, these reviews have resulted in the decision not to introduce this drug in the ambulance service at the time. This paper describes the reasoning behind these decisions.