Occupational therapy and evidence-based practice in mental health

Evidence-based practice (EBP) represents a paradigm shift in health care. This review has two aims. The first is to consider the merits of EBP,especially in respect of its use in mental health settings. The second is both to identify psychosocial interventions that have an established evidence base for effectiveness and to provide an analysis of the quality of this evidence and its implications for occupational therapy. Supported employment, family psychoeducation, assertive case management and integrated substance use treatment are examined in detail. It is proposed that occupational therapists working in mental health give priority to psychosocial interventions that are based on evidence and incorporate these into their practice. It is further proposed that, in implementing EBP,practitioners take an active evaluating position in relation to published evidence, paying particular attention to the evidence of effectiveness in equivalent clinical environments.

Is discrepancy between actual and preferred work activities a factor in work-related stress for mental health occupational therapists and social workers

In the Western developed nations, the changing pattern of mental health care provision has necessitated mental health staff adopting new approaches to service delivery across a diverse and expanding range of service settings. The impact of changed service delivery on Australian mental health professionals is an area that has not been well studied. The aim of the study was to identify the current clinical work activities performed by occupational therapists and social workers and whether there was a discrepancy between the actual and preferred work activities. The study also aimed to identify whether any discrepancy between their actual and preferred clinical work activities was associated with higher levels of stress. A cross-sectional survey of 304 (response rate 76.6%) occupational therapists and social workers in Australian mental health services was conducted. A work activities scale developed specifically for this study and the Mental Health Professionals Stress Scale were used to measure actual and preferred work activities and stress respectively. Both groups experienced a discrepancy between their actual and preferred work activities, with the occupational therapists and the social workers mostly wanting to undertake a diverse range of activities to a significantly greater extent than they currently were. As predicted, stress was associated with the discrepancy between the kind of work that the participants wanted to do and the kind of work that their job actually entailed. Health workers require assistance to adapt to their new work roles and to achieve a balance between generic and discipline-specific competencies. This has implications for education and professional training.

Sources of stress experienced by occupational therapists and social workers in mental health settings

This study examined the sources of stress experienced by occupational therapists and social workers employed in Australian public mental health services and identified the demographic and work-related factors related to stress using a cross-sectional survey design. Participants provided demographic and work-related information and completed the Mental Health Professionals Stress Scale. The overall response rate to the survey was 76.6%, consisting of 196 occupational therapists and 108 social workers. Results indicated that lack of resources, relationships and conflicts with other professionals, workload, and professional self-doubt were correlated with increased stress. Working in case management was associated with stress caused by client-related difficulties, lack of resources, and professional self-doubt. The results of this study suggest that Australian occupational therapists and social workers experience stress, with social workers reporting slightly more overall stress than occupational therapists. Copyright © 2005 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Occupational therapy and clinical research in mental health rehabilitation

Practitioners working in Australian mental health services are faced with the challenge of providing appropriate evidence-based interventions that lead to measurable improvement and good outcomes. Current government policy is committed to the development of strategic mental health research. One focus has been on under-researched practice areas, which include the development of psychosocial rehabilitation systems and models that facilitate recovery. To meet this challenge, an Australian rehabilitation service formed a collaborative partnership with a university. The purposes of the collaboration were to implement new forms of service delivery based on consumer need and evidence and to design research projects to evaluate components of the rehabilitation programme. This article examines the process of developing the collaboration and provides examples of how research projects have been used to inform practice and improve the effectiveness of service delivery. Challenges to the sustainability of this kind of collaboration are considered.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol during transition from intramuscular to oral therapy

Background: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia who receive intramuscular (IM) medications typically are switched to oral (PO) antipsychotic maintenance therapy Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus those of haloperidol during transition from IM to PO therapy We used additional data from a previously reported trial to test the hypothesis that the reduction in agitation achieved by IM olanzapine 10 mg or IM haloperidol 7.5 mg would be maintained following transition to 4 days of PO olanzapine or PO haloperidol (5-20 mg/d for both). We also hypothesized that olanzapine would maintain its more favorable extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) safety profile. Methods: This was a multinational (hospitals in 13 countries), double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Acutely agitated inpatients with schizophrenia were treated with 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours and were entered into a 4-day PO treatment period with the same medication (5-20 mg/d for both). The primary efficacy measurement was reduction in agitation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Adverse events and scores on EPS rating scales were assessed. Results: A total of 311 patients (204 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [11.6] years) were enrolled (131, 126, and 54 patients in the olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively). In all, 93.1% (122/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 92.1% (116/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the IM period and entered the PO period; 85.5% (112/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 84.1% (106/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the PO period. IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours (mean [SD] PANSS-EC change, -7.1 [4.8] vs -6.7 [4.3], respectively). Reductions in agitation were sustained throughout the PO period with both study drugs (mean [SD] change from PO period baseline, -0.6 [4.8] vs -1.3 [4.4], respectively). During PO treatment, haloperidol-treated patients spontaneously reported significantly more acute dystonia than olanzapine-treated patients (4.3% [5/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.026) and akathisia (5.2% [6/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.013). Significantly more haloperidol-treated patients than olanzapine-treated patients met categorical criteria for treatment-emergent akathisia (18.5% [17/92] vs 6.5% [7/107], respectively; P = 0.015). Conclusions: In the acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia in this study, both IM olanzapine 10 mg and IM haloperidol 7.5 mg effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours. This alleviation of agitation was sustained following transition from IM therapy to 4 days of PO treatment (5-20 mg/d for both). During the 4 days of PO treatment, olanzapine-treated patients did not spontaneously report any incidences of acute dystonia, and olanzapine had a superior EPS safety profile to that of haloperidol. The combination of IM and PO olanzapine may help improve the treatment of acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia. Copyright (C) 2003 Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Clinical reporting by occupational therapists and speech pathologists: Therapists' intentions and parental satisfaction

This study employed a qualitative research design to explore therapists' and parents' perspectives of paediatric occupational therapy and speech pathology assessment reports. Aims of the study were to explore the intentions of therapists when writing reports, to expand upon existing literature on parental satisfaction and preferences with respect to paediatric clinical reports, to highlight documentation practices that would serve to maximize parental use of allied health reports, and to develop specific guidelines on how reports can be written to ensure they are useful and beneficial to therapists and parents. Participants were 15 parents of children who had been assessed at 1 of 2 university clinics and subsequently received a written report, and 11 therapists employed at the same university clinics. Questionnaires were used to seek information from therapists concerning the purpose of assessment reports and essential aspects to include when writing reports for parents. In-depth interviews were used to seek information about how understandable and beneficial clinical reports were to parents. The data were subjected to thematic analysis. From comments of therapists' intentions and parents' stated needs, and in accordance with literature reviewed, guidelines were identified for the production of parent-oriented reports. Conclusions drawn from this study can be specifically applied to services producing paediatric occupational therapy or speech pathology assessment reports, but are widely relevant to paediatric allied health services. (author abstract)

Effectiveness and safety of repeat courses of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of repeat treatment with hylan G-F 20 based on data from a randomized, controlled trial [Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:506-17]. The hypotheses tested were whether the single-course and repeat-course subgroups would be superior to appropriate care and not different from each other. Method: A total of 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20. The hylan G-F 20 group was partitioned into two subgroups: (1) patients who received a single course of hylan G-F 20; and (2) patients who received two or more courses of hylan G-F 20. Results: For the primary effectiveness measure, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score as a percent of baseline, the single-course subgroup improved by 41%, the repeat-course subgroup by 35%, and the appropriate care group by 14%. Both subgroups improved significantly more than the appropriate care group (P < 0.05), and were not statistically significantly different from each other (70% power to detect a 20% difference). Secondary effectiveness measures showed similar results. In the repeat-course subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of local adverse events, the number of patients with local adverse events, or arthrocentesis rates between the first and repeat courses of treatment. Conclusions: Although the study was neither designed nor powered to examine repeat treatment, this a posteriori analysis provides support for a favorable effectiveness and safety profile of hylan G-F 20 in repeat course patients. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.