Childhood absence epilepsy and febrile seizures: A family with a GABAA receptor mutation

Although several genes for idiopathic epilepsies from families with simple Mendelian inheritance have been found, genes for the common idiopathic generalized epilepsies, where inheritance is complex, presently are elusive. We studied a large family with epilepsy where the two main phenotypes were childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) and febrile seizures (FS), which offered a special opportunity to identify epilepsy genes. A total of 35 family members had seizures over four generations. The phenotypes comprised typical CAE (eight individuals); FS alone (15), febrile seizures plus (FS+) (three); myoclonic astatic epilepsy (two); generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic seizures alone (one); partial epilepsy (one); and unclassified epilepsy despite evaluation (two). In three remaining individuals, no information was available. FS were inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion with 75% penetrance. The inheritance of CAE in this family was not simple Mendelian, but suggestive of complex inheritance with the involvement of at least two genes. A GABA(A) receptor gamma2 subunit gene mutation on chromosome 5 segregated with FS, FS+ and CAE, and also occurred in individuals with the other phenotypes. The clinical and molecular data suggest that the GABA(A) receptor subunit mutation alone can account for the FS phenotype. An interaction of this gene with another gene or genes is required for the CAE phenotype in this family. Linkage analysis for a putative second gene contributing to the CAE phenotype suggested possible loci on chromosomes 10, 13, 14 and 15. Examination of these loci in other absence pedigrees is warranted.

Are a health advocacy diary and health assessment welcomed by those who use them?

Aim: To determine acceptability of a health advocacy intervention, the Ask Diary and the comprehensive health assessment program (CHAP). Method: We performed a two by two designed randomised controlled trial of the Ask Diary and the CHAP tool in  adults with intellectual disability. Results of interviews of self-advocates and caregiver advocates, both families and paid carers, will be presented. Results: The interviews found strong support for the Ask Diary and the CHAP tool among selfadvocates and family caregivers. There was clear indication that the Ask Diary improved advocacy, aided in the organisation of health matters and was easy to use. It was reported that the health assessment resulted in benefits for the person’s health and high acceptability by carers. There was less support for the interventions where the person was supported through government services. Conclusions: Self-advocates and family caregivers welcome and use a personalised health advocacy diary and also a health assessment. However paid carers used the diary less but were supportive of the health assessment.

Client satisfaction and empowerment through social work intervention

This Study examines the utility of satisfaction questionnaires in gauging the effectiveness of social work services in a paediatric hospital setting. Participants completed an empowerment scale before seeing a social worker. Approximately four weeks later, participants completed the empowerment scale again, at which time they also completed a satisfaction questionnaire. The difference between the pre- and post-test empowerment scores was compared with the satisfaction scores, and the influence of some demographic and intervention variables was examined. The results indicated that there was no significant relationship between participants' reported level of satisfaction with the social work service provided and the change in participants' empowerment scores before and after intervention. Most demographic and intervention. variables tested did not yield any significant associations with satisfaction or change in empowerment. However, it was found that those who received both counselling and practical assistance (rather than only one or the other) and those with a higher level of education were more likely to report an increase in their level of empowerment after receiving social work intervention. This study lends further support to the contention that satisfaction questionnaires alone may not provide reliable information with regard to the utility and effectiveness of paediatric hospital social work intervention.

Program sustainability of a community-based intervention to prevent falls among older Australians

Multi-strategy interventions have been demonstrated to prevent falls among older people, but studies have not explored their sustainability. This paper investigates program sustainability of Stay on Your Feet (SOYF), an Australian multi-strategy falls prevention program (1992-1996) that achieved a significant reduction in falls-related hospital admissions. A series of surveys assessed recall, involvement and current falls prevention activities, 5 years post-SOYF in multiple original SOYF stakeholder groups within the study area [general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists, community health (CH) staff shire councils (SCs) and access committees (ACs)]. Focus groups explored possible behavioural changes in the target group. Surveys were mailed, except to CH staff and ACs. who participated in guided group sessions and were contacted via the telephone, respectively. Response rates were: GPs. 67% (139/209); pharmacists, 79% (53/67); CH staff, 63% (129/204); SCs, 90% (9/10); ACs, 80% (8/10). There were 73 older people in eight focus groups. Of 117 GPs who were practising during SOYF 80% recalled SOYF and 74% of these reported an influence on their practice. Of 46 pharmacists operating a business during SOYF, 45% had heard of SOYF and 79% of these reported being 'somewhat' influenced. Of 76 community health staff (59%) in the area at that time, 99% had heard of SOYF and 82% reported involvement. Four SCs retained a SOYF resource, but none thought current activities were related. Seven ACs reported involvement, but no activities were sustained. Thirty-five focus group participants (48%) remembered SOYF and reported a variety of SOYF-initiated behaviour changes. Program sustainability was clearly demonstrated among health practitioners. Further research is required to assess long-term effect sustainability.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders

Background: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge. Method: A comprehensive literature review (1990-2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process. Treatment recommendations: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3-5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this 'critical period'. Patients should not have to 'prove chronicity' before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at least two antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no special Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved.