Page 1
1
Is the ACT model effective in a contemporary Danish psychiatric setting?
Preliminary Results from a Danish Multi-centre Trial of Assertive Community Treatment vs. Standard Psychiatric Treatment
Marie Høgh Thøgersen, Bispebjerg Psychiatric Dep. Gøteborg 2007
Page 2
2
Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)In Denmark
2003: wide-scale Implementation
Debate on ethical issues in relation to ACT
Page 3
3
Dilemma in Psychiatry
Paternalisme
Autonomy
Page 4
4
Deinstitutionalisation was associated with less paternalism and more autonomy
Paternalism
Autonomy
Is Assertive Community Treatment associated with more paternalism and less
autonomy?
Page 5
5
Study Design
ACT-Team I Control I ACT-Team II Control II
ACT-team
dropout dropout
2 YEAR FOLLOW UP
ASSESSMENT
ACT-team Control
BASELINE
Register Data (1)Medical Records (2)
Register Data (1)Medical Records (2)
Interviews (3)
N= 213 N= 153
Control Level 1 = 5 Level 2 = 20 Level 3 = 66
Level 1 = 8Level 2 = 6
Level 3 =110
Page 6
6
Inclusion Criteria
• Age 18-65 • Address in catchment area• Chronic mental illness
• At least 4 admissions or 40 days at hospital within the last 2 years
• Dual diagnoses • Difficult to engage with services
Page 7
7
Model Fidelity: How do we know that the danish ACT teams follow
the ACT principles?
Assessment of adherence to model
(IF-ACT) = 17-item Index of Fidelity to Assertive Community Treatment scale
Page 8
8
TREATMENT ACT TEAM STANDARD TREAT.
• 1:10
• Weekly
• Home
• Yes
• Generally
• Yes
• 1:20 / 1:30
• Varies
• CMHC
• No
• No
• No
Case load
Staff
Frequency of contact
Place of visits
Contact at hospital
Crisis plan
Contact outside office hours
PsychiatristPsychologistPsychiatric nurseSocial workerOccupational therapist
Psychiatrist Psychiatric nurse (Social worker)
Page 9
9
Results
Level 1 (Registerdata)
Level 2 (Medical Records)
Page 10
10
ACTn=213
CONTROLn=153
P value of Difference
Male 126 (59) 95 (62) 0.7
Mean (SD) age (years) 42,6 (11) 43,5 (11) 0.4
Ethnicity other than Danish 62 (29,1) 37 (24,2) 0.4
Completed high school education 40 (20) 35 (23) 0.4
Having children 64 (33) 52 (36) 0.7
Living conditions
Married or living with partner 26 (13) 15 (10) 0.4
Living independently 163 (78) 119 (78) 0.3
Living in supervised setting 10 (5) 6 (4) 0.3
Living with parents or family 12 (6) 15 (10) 0.3
Homeless 25 (12) 12 (8) 0.3
Sociodemographic characteristics at baseline
Page 11
11
Clinical characteristics at baseline
ACTn=213
CONTROLn=153
P value of Difference
Social functioning GAF function 34,21 (10,5) 34,99 (10,9) 0.52
Health service use
Mean (SD) days in hospital Mean (SD) days of involuntary admission
48,4 (71,9)
23,2 (45,8)
44,6 (71,2)
30,4 (60,8)
0.84
0.03
Diagnosis
Schizophrenia
Other
198(95)
9 (4)
142 (93)
10 (6)
Comorbidity:Substance abuse 118 (57) 72 (47) 0.07
Level of Drug dependence Mean DTES (SD) 3,71 (2,6) 3,23 (2,5) 0.10
Page 12
12
Clinical outcomes at 2 year follow-up
ACTn=213
CONTROLn=153
P value of Difference
Health service use Mean (SD) days in hospital Mean (SD) days of Involuntary admission
16 (43,8)
5,3 (20,3)
36,8 (69,9)
18,1 (44,8)
0.00
0.00
Level of Drug dependence: Mean DTES (SD) Difference from DTES score at inclusion
3,57 (2,5)
-0.19 (2,1)
3,55 (2,6)
0,25 (2,0)
0.54
0.06
Social functioning GAF (function) 38,47 (10,8) 35,15 (10,8) 0.01
Page 13
13
Results
Level 3 (Patient Interviews)
Page 14
14
Interviews
Are mentally ill people a credible source of information?– Drop out– Missing data – Ambigious reply’s
Page 15
15
Place of Interviews
57%
17%
9%
17%Home ofPatient
TreatmentCenter
ResearchOffice
Other
N = 183
Page 16
16
User satisfaction and quality of life
ACTn=101
CONTROLn=86
P value of Difference
User satisfactionClient Satisfaction Questionnaire
24,25 (5,86) 21,89 (5,27) 0.01
Quality of LifeMANSA*
57,12 (11,85) 55,96(9,75) 0.57
Page 17
17
Do patients experience the assertive approach in the two Danish ACT teams as coercive?
Page 18
18
Preliminary Results: Experience of CoercionDo you experience that: • That you can make yourself
understood in relation to your case manager?
• That your case manager respects your rights as a patient and keeps his/her confidentiality?
• That you can ask your case manager to leave, during home visits, if you want him/her to leave?
12 Qualitative Interviews
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.4-5 = Yes
3 = Neutral
1-2 = No
No, Definitely not
Yes, definitely
Page 19
19
Does your case manager respect your rights as a patient and keep his/her
confidentiality?
0102030405060708090
100
ACT Team Control
Yes (4-5)
Neutral (3)
No (1-2)
% o
f to
tal
N= 149 P= 0,54
Page 20
200
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ACT Team Control
Yes (4-5)
Neutral (3)
No (1-2)
Can you make yourself understood in relation to your case manager?
N= 165 P= 0,056
% o
f to
tal
Page 21
21
Can you ask your case manager to leave during home visits, if you want him/her to
leave?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ACT-Team
Yes (4-5)
Neutral (3)
No (1-2)
% o
f al
l
0102030405060708090
Danish Ethnicbackgroundother than
danish
Yes (4-5)
Neutral(3)
No(1-2)
N= 70/96 P= 0,000**
Page 22
22
Patient experiences of medication
Page 23
23
Have you taken antipsychotic medication within the last year?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ACT Team Control
Yes
No
N= 165/183 P= 0,375
Page 24
24
Can you decide for yourself, whether or not to take your medication?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ACT Team Control
Yes
No
N= 152/183 P= 0,035*
Page 25
25
In your opinion, does your case manager encourage you to get started with some of the
things you would like to do?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
ACT team Control
Yes
No% o
f to
tal
N= 145 /183 P= 0,020*
Page 26
26
In your opinion, is your Case Manager a collaborator?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ACT Team Control
Yes
No
N= 156 /183 P= 0,009*
Page 27
27
Is the ACT model effective
in a contemporary Danish
psychiatric setting?
Page 28
28
In the light of the
results from this study,
the answer seems to be yes.
Page 29
29
CONCLUSION
Signficantly fewer days spendt at hospital
Significantly fewer days of involountry admission
Significantly higher level of social functioning (GAF)
Signficiantly higher improvement in level of drug abuse (DTES)
Significant higher level of user satisfaction
At 2 year follow-up,patients in the ACT teamswere characterised by:
Page 30
30
CONCLUSION - continued
Patients do not experience the assertive outreach in the Danish ACT Teams as coercive - the contrary appears to be the case
Patients in the ACT Teams experience a higher degree of influence on medication
Danes with other ethnic background differ significantly in their experience of coercion
The patient perspective is important
Page 31
31
Thank you for your attention.
Good Afternoon!
Page 32
32
Ethical Dilemma
Paternalism: Autonomy:
Hippokrates: to do what the doctor considered good for the patient
with or without accept from the patient
to give priority to patient’s autonomy
even if it was harmful to patient’s health
Page 33
33
2 year follow up, 1*, 2*+3*
Baseline 1* + 2* Baseline 1* + 2*
ACT Group 1n = 121
ST Group1n = 86
ST Group 2n = 67
ACT Group 2n = 92
Dropout-2level 1: n =8level 2: n =16
level 3: n =110
Dropout-2level 1: n =5
level 2: n =20level 3: n =66
Dropout-1level 1: n =1level 2: n=12
ExcludedPt’s
N = 9
Excluded Pt.'s.1N = 5
Excluded Pt.'s.1N = 2
Excluded pt.'s.1N =3
Dropout-1level 1: n =2level 2: n=15
2 year follow up, 1*, 2*+3*
ACTN = 213
CONTROLN = 153
assesmentassesment
Page 34
34
Average length of meetings with case manager
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ACT Team Control
≤ 10 min.
½-1 hrs.
≥ 1.5 hrs.
N= 183 P= 0,000**
% o
f to
tal
Page 35
35
Frequency of meetings with case manager
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ACT Team Control
≤1 month
1 month
2-3 week
1 week
>1 week
N= 183 P= 0,000**
Number of times per week /month
Page 36
36
Does your Case Manager think that you can not get on without his/her help?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
ACT- team Control
Yes
No
N= 134 /183 P= 0,022*