Search

SHIFT has been one of the largest RCTs in the field of systemic family therapy in the UK. The study took place over five years, including three major centres with fifteen Trusts and twenty‐five family therapists who worked with a manualized treatment in CAMHS with adolescents who self‐harmed. While the results are not available at the time of this publication, this paper will briefly describe the pre‐ existing factors which were helpful in developing a successful bid, clinical and managerial elements of ‘real world research’ of complex psychological processes and the construction of the manualized systemic family therapy. It also offers examples of some of the unanticipated events in the life of such a large trial. Practitioner Points: Large trials develop from small studies and clinicians are urged to look for opportunities for research partnershipsInvestment in time for consideration of difficult issues as they arise is essential for effective trial managementThe balance between research rigour and ‘real life’ practice is an inevitable area of tension and requires consideration of both immediate and outcome consequences 尝试和痛苦 – 一种随机对照试验对比下的把干预当作惯常和在实施过程中出现的重要事件上的反思的家庭治疗 人工家庭治疗 摘要: SHIFT目前是英国家庭治疗领域最大的随机对照试验之一。本研究历时5年, 囊括了三个主要的中心在内的15个信托, 25位曾在CAMHS对自残青少年进行人工治疗的家庭治疗师。因为在发表这篇文章的时候, 结果还没有出来, 本文将简短地描述1）有助发展成功bid的已经存在的因素, 2）临床以及管理方面的复杂心理过程的”真实情况研究”元素, 3）以及人工系统家庭治理的建构。本文还提供了生活在这样一种大的的尝试下的一些意想不到事件的例子。 对实践者有用的几点建议: 大的尝试发展自小的研究, 临床工作者急需寻找研究合作者的机会困难事件需要及时解决, 不然就会对有效尝试管理产生重要影响研究活力和”真实生活”实践的平衡是一种不可避免的引起紧张的领域, 这需要对当下和结果的同时考虑 关键词：实证实践, 研究, 儿童和青少年精神健康, 培训 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A substantial minority of adolescents suffer from depression and it is associated with increased risk of suicide, social and educational impairment, and mental health problems in adulthood. A recently conducted randomized controlled trial in England evaluated the effectiveness of a manualized universally delivered age-appropriate CBT programme in school classrooms. The cost-effectiveness of the programme for preventing low mood and depression for all participants from a health and social care sector perspective needs to be determined. Methods A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis based on a cluster-randomized controlled trial (trial registration - ISRCTN 19083628) comparing classroom-based CBT with usual school provision of Personal Social and Health Education. Per-student cost of intervention was estimated from programme records. The study was undertaken in eight mixed-sex UK secondary schools, and included 3,357 school children aged 12 to 16 years (in the two trial arms evaluated in the cost-effectiveness analysis). The main outcome measures were individual self-reported data on care costs, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years ( QALYs, based on the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument) and symptoms of depression (Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire) at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Results Although there was lower quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (−.05 QALYs per person, 95% confidence interval −.09 to −.005, p = .03) with CBT, this is a 'clinically' negligible difference, which was not found in the complete case analyses. There was little evidence of any between-arm differences in SMFQ scores (0.19, 95% CI −0.57 to 0.95, p = .62), or costs (£142, 95% CI −£132 to £415, p = .31) per person for CBT versus usual school provision. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that the universal provision of classroom-based CBT is unlikely to be either more effective or less costly than usual school provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is increased in children with intellectual disability. Previous research has suggested stimulants are less effective than in typically developing children but no studies have titrated medication for individual optimal dosing or tested the effects for longer than 4 weeks. Method: One hundred and twenty two drug-free children aged 7-15 with hyperkinetic disorder and IQ 30-69 were recruited to a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized participants using minimization by probability, stratified by referral source and IQ level in a one to one ratio. Methylphenidate was compared with placebo. Dose titration comprised at least 1 week each of low (0.5 mg/kg/day), medium (1.0 mg/kg/day) and high dose (1.5 mg/kg/day). Parent and teacher Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) index of the Conners Rating Scale-Short Version at 16 weeks provided the primary outcome measures. Clinical response was determined with the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI-I). Adverse effects were evaluated by a parent-rated questionnaire, weight, pulse and blood pressure. Analyses were by intention to treat. Trial registration: ISRCTN 68384912. Results: Methylphenidate was superior to placebo with effect sizes of 0.39 [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.09, 0.70] and 0.52 (95% CIs 0.23, 0.82) for the parent and teacher Conners ADHD index. Four (7%) children on placebo versus 24 (40%) of those on methylphenidate were judged improved or much improved on the CGI. IQ and autistic symptoms did not affect treatment efficacy. Active medication was associated with sleep difficulty, loss of appetite and weight loss but there were no significant differences in pulse or blood pressure. Conclusions: Optimal dosing of methylphenidate is practical and effective in some children with hyperkinetic disorder and intellectual disability. Adverse effects typical of methylphenidate were seen and medication use may require close monitoring in this vulnerable group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]