IAC 05-254
Illness Management and Recovery for Veterans with Severe Mental Illness
Michelle P Salyers, MS PhD Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN Funding Period: October 2007 - September 2011 Portfolio Assignment: Mental and Behavioral Health |
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has called for a transformation of the mental health system to partner with consumers of those services in delivering effective interventions focused on recovery, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a Mental Health Strategic Plan to address these recommendations. One promising approach is to implement Illness Management and Recovery (IMR), a structured curriculum to help mental health consumers manage their illnesses and pursue goals related to recovery from mental illness. Although IMR is based on practices shown to be effective in controlled research, effectiveness of the comprehensive package of IMR has only been studied in 3 randomized trials. None of those trials included an active attention control, and none of them were focused on veterans. OBJECTIVE(S): Although IMR is based on practices shown to be effective in controlled research, effectiveness of the comprehensive package of IMR has been demonstrated in only three randomized, controlled trials. Each of those had a weak control group (treatment as usual) and none included veterans. The primary objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of IMR in veterans with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, compared to an active control group (problem solving intervention). Our primary focus was to examine the impact of the IMR intervention on consumer outcomes related to illness self-management and recovery. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled trial comparing IMR to a problem solving group, in the context of ongoing usual mental health treatment in veterans with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Assessment included semi-structured interviews and standardized measures at baseline, 9 months, and 18 months to assess illness self-management (e.g., symptoms), objective indicators of recovery (e.g., role functioning), and subjective indicators of recovery (e.g., perceptions of well-being). Assessments included client self-report as well as interviewer, clinician, and informant ratings. In addition, electronic medical records were accessed to determine the impact of IMR on other service utilization (inpatient and emergency services). Fidelity of the intervention was assessed with a newly developed scale - the IMR Treatment Integrity Scale (IT-IS). FINDINGS/RESULTS: Recruitment was more difficult than expected. We were unable to recruit the target of 200 veterans with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder in the time frame allotted. We expanded recruitment to a local community mental health center and were able to recruit and randomize 118 consumers to either IMR or a problem solving group. Attendance rates for both groups were low. Of those randomized to IMR, the mean attendance was 25% of total sessions, with 14% of the sample attending no IMR groups. For problem solving groups, the mean attendance was 19% of total sessions, with 21% of the sample attending no problem solving groups. We developed the IT-IS instrument to be able to assess the degree to which the groups in the study were following the IMR model (McGuire et al., in press). Working with Kim Mueser, developer of IMR, we created a 13-item scale (with 3 optional items) to be completed by trained raters on the basis of audiotaped sessions. Independent raters scored tapes of IMR (n = 60) and the problem solving group (n = 20). The IT-IS showed excellent inter-rater reliability. A factor analysis supported a one-factor model with good internal consistency. The scale successfully differentiated between IMR and problem solving groups. Follow-up interviews at 9 months were completed with 81 participants. Initial analyses focused on comparing groups (as randomized) between baseline and nine months using repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs). There were significant time effects for improvement in symptoms as rated by interviews using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), F (1,79) = 23.95, p < .001. The total sample improved from a mean of 75.4 (16.2) to a mean of 67.6 (17.0). There were trends (p = .09) for improvements over time in client self ratings of illness management and recovery (IMR rating scale) and the recovery assessment scale. However, there were no groupXtime interactions. IMPACT: Preliminary outcomes suggest that while consumers showed improvements over time, there may not be a significant advantage for IMR over a problem-solving intervention. Future analyses are needed to better understand potential impact on service utilization, and reasons for lack of attendance and the impact that may have on consumer outcome. One important product from this work is the development of a psychometrically sound clinician-level fidelity scale that can be used for training and monitoring in the implementation of IMR. External Links for this ProjectDimensions for VADimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.Learn more about Dimensions for VA. VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address. Search Dimensions for this project PUBLICATIONS:Journal Articles
DRA:
Mental, Cognitive and Behavioral Disorders
DRE: Treatment - Observational Keywords: Depression, Schizophrenia MeSH Terms: none |